Trial News

This week, AAJ filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs in consolidated cases in which Ford Motor Co. petitioned the Court to overturn two state supreme court decisions against it. In both cases, the plaintiffs allege defective Ford vehicles resulted in catastrophic injuries, but the automaker had moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. (Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, Nos. 19-368, 19-369 (U.S. cert. granted Jan. 17, 2020).) Significantly, a bipartisan coalition of 40 state attorneys general also filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. No states have filed in support of Ford. The case is of great importance to consumers and may have significant ramifications for establishing personal jurisdiction.

The Minnesota and Montana Supreme Courts held that the plaintiffs’ claims arose out of the defendant’s contacts with those states—even though the particular vehicles at issue were not manufactured in those states or originally sold there. Ford argued that its activities in Minnesota and Montana were not significant enough to establish specific jurisdiction.

As stated in the plaintiffs’ brief, which was authored by Washington, D.C., attorney Deepak Gupta, “the question here is whether a Minnesotan and a Montanan injured in Minnesota and Montana can access courts in Minnesota and Montana to be heard on claims against the company that regularly marketed and sold, in Minnesota and Montana, the product that caused their injuries.” 

AAJ’s amicus brief—authored by Washington, D.C., attorney Robert S. Peck—argues that Ford has an “ongoing relationship” to the vehicle and owner—through its warranties, for example, which “travel with the vehicle to wherever the owner may locate.” In addition, Ford, like other automakers, energetically markets parts and servicing of its Ford vehicles wherever they are domiciled. Thus, “Ford cannot logically deny that the necessary minimum contacts with the forum State . . . are met.”

AAJ’s brief was joined by Public Justice. Oral arguments were scheduled for April 27 but have been postponed due to COVID-19.

Please set a Datasource.