On March 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the test established for personal jurisdiction by holding that a causal link to the cause of action is not necessary to establish specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.  Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, et al. 592 U.S. _____ (2021).  Instead, the Court focused its analysis on the “or relate” portion of the “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts” standard established in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz.  The Court emphasized the Burger King standard contemplates that some relationships will support jurisdiction without a causal showing.  In doing so, the Court held that Ford Motor Company could be sued in both Montana and Minnesota over injuries sustained from car accidents that occurred in those states, even though the particular Ford vehicles involved in the accidents were not manufactured or originally sold in either state.  In support of its holding, the Court noted that Ford regularly markets, advertises, services and sells Ford vehicles (including the particular vehicles involved in both accidents) in Montana and Minnesota, and thus there was a strong relationship among the defendant, forum and litigation.  The Court further distinguished the case from Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court by holding that the claims brought in that case were by non-resident plaintiffs who never purchased, used or were harmed by the products in the forum State.  However, in these cases, both plaintiffs were residents who used the defective product and were injured in the forum State.

Please see attached: Personal Jurisdiction Opinion

In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.’s Diversity & Inclusion Committee organized a service event for the offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey and Delaware. The project entailed collecting essential items and supplies for the Bethesda Project. The Bethesda Project is a non-profit organization which offers support services and resources to individuals experiencing homelessness.

MOODK’s Pittsburgh office was successful in obtaining an Entry of Judgment Non Pros for an anesthesiologist, related to a medical malpractice claim filed in Erie County. The anesthesiologist was acting as a temporary anesthesiologist at a hospital where Plaintiff was admitted to undergo a cesarean section. The temporary anesthesiologist provided anesthetic services during the procedure. Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons two years after the procedure, naming the temporary anesthesiologist, the hospital and other physicians, however a Complaint was not filed. Counsel for the Plaintiff withdrew their appearance prior to the filing of a Complaint, and the Court stayed the proceedings for 60 days to allow Plaintiff to obtain other counsel or otherwise file a Complaint. At the expiration of the stay, attorneys Rodgers and Holden filed a motion for Entry of Judgment Non Pros. After Plaintiff failed to respond, the Court granted the motion, entered judgment for the defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Daniel Bentz, managing partner in the Pittsburgh office, recently obtained a favorable ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, upholding the defense verdict obtained at the trial level. This was a complex products liability case in which our client was accused of manufacturing defective specialty seats used in the locomotive industry.

After a nine-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client. The Plaintiff appealed the verdict, claiming the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, which could not be reconciled, and demanded a new trial on all the issues.

The Third Circuit disagreed with this and affirmed the defense verdict.