§Why CasetextPricing

Fenstemaker et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

66 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,618 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,204 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  3. Walden v. Fiore

    571 U.S. 277 (2014)   Cited 4,301 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”

  4. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,825 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

  5. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.

    526 U.S. 574 (1999)   Cited 4,159 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because "[t]hey keep the federal courts within the bounds the Constitution and Congress have prescribed," questions concerning subject matter jurisdiction "must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level"

  6. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,831 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  7. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,874 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

  8. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

    564 U.S. 873 (2011)   Cited 1,342 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a metal-shearing machine manufacturer based in England that engaged an independent distributor to sell its machines across the U.S. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured while using one of the company's machines

  9. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,590 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )

  10. Hanson v. Denckla

    357 U.S. 235 (1958)   Cited 7,871 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant trustee was inappropriate when defendant's only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiff-settlor's unilateral activity of moving to Florida

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,981 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,391 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

  13. Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation

    28 U.S.C. § 1407   Cited 7,055 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts

  14. Section 351.594 - Service on foreign corporation

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 351.594   Cited 8 times

    1. The registered agent of a foreign corporation authorized to transact business in this state is the corporation's agent for service of process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served on the foreign corporation. 2. A foreign corporation may be served by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the secretary of the foreign corporation at its principal office shown in its application for a certificate of authority or in its most recent corporate registration

  15. Section 351.586 - Registered office and agent of foreign corporation

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 351.586   Cited 8 times

    Each foreign corporation authorized to transact business in this state shall continuously maintain in this state: (1) A registered office that may be the same as any of its places of business; and (2) A registered agent, who may be: (a) An individual who resides in this state and whose business office is identical with the registered office; (b) A domestic corporation or not-for-profit domestic corporation whose business office is identical with the registered office; or (c) A foreign corporation

  16. Rule 52.05 - Who May Join as Plaintiff and Defendant-Protective Orders, When

    Mo. R. Civ. P. 52.05   Cited 3 times

    (a) Permissive Joinder. All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action. All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect