Amicus Briefs

Download the Brief

Issue Presented

Whether the Ninth Circuit should grant a petition for rehearing en banc to address the question of specific personal jurisdiction over British company doing business in Idaho.

Factual Summary

Erica Davis and the other Plaintiffs sought accountability after suffering devastating losses tied to faulty technology provided by Cranfield Aerospace Solutions Ltd., a British company. Cranfield’s presence in the United States was undeniable—its products, influence, and profits all extended across American soil. Yet, when Davis and her co-plaintiffs turned to the courts for justice, they were met with a harsh technicality.

The Idaho District Court ruled that Cranfield could not be sued in the United States due to a lack of personal jurisdiction.¹ This decision felt like an abandonment of their right to hold a company accountable for its dangerous products. The Plaintiffs believe that Cranfield, by operating and profiting within the United States, should not be allowed to escape responsibility simply by claiming jurisdictional immunity. The decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit and review was denied by the Supreme Court, rejecting the opportunity to have their case heard and to hold Cranfield accountable for the harm it caused.²

AAJ’s Position

AAJ filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Plaintiffs, emphasizing that Cranfield Aerospace’s substantial operations in the United States mean it should answer for the harm it causes here. AAJ argues that allowing a company to hide behind jurisdictional loopholes denies the victims their rightful day in court. Businesses that reap the benefits of the American market should also bear the responsibility when their products cause harm to U.S. citizens. AAJ stresses the importance of ensuring that foreign corporations, like Cranfield, are held accountable within the U.S. legal system, so that individuals harmed by corporate negligence can seek the justice they deserve.

Outcome: Adverse

The Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc, refusing to reconsider its June 23, 2023, holding that their case lacked specific personal jurisdiction to sue Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, Ltd. in Idaho.³

Citations

Brief: Brief of Amicus Curiae American Association for Justice in Support of Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols. Ltd., No. 22-35099 (August 17, 2023).

Opinion: Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols. Ltd., 350 F. Supp. 3d 22 (N.D. Cal. 2023).

^[1] Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols. Ltd., No. 2:20-CV-00536-BLW, 2022 WL 36488 (D. Ida. Jan 4, 2022), aff'd, 71 F.4th 1154 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 826, 218 L. Ed. 2d 33 (2024).

^[2] Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols. Ltd., 71 F.4th 1154 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 826, 218 L. Ed. 2d 33 (2024).

^[3] Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols. Ltd., 350 F. Supp. 3d 22 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (finding court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant even though the British company actively participated in the design and certification of the system at issue in the case in that state).