The Extensive Approach for Specific Jurisdiction in the United State Civil Procedure

In March, 2021, the United States Supreme Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court decided on specific jurisdiction for two cases against Ford Motor, a world-wide automobile company, being sued in Montana and Minnesota where Ford’s used cars caused death to a Montana resident and inflicted personal injury to a Minnesota resident. Ford argued that courts in Montana and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over Ford because its vehicles involved in the accidents and injured non-residents of these states were not designed, manufactured, or sold directly by Ford in those States even if the accidents occurred in those states. The Court and Ford relied on a principle of specific jurisdiction: “The plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” For the first time, the Court suggested two tests for specific jurisdiction from: one is a causation test from the first phrase “arise out of,” and the other is a relation test from the second phrase “relate to,” meaning “some relationship without a causal showing.” Ford argued that courts in Montana and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over Ford since its vehicles involved in the accidents and injured non-residents of these states were not designed, manufactured, or sold directly by Ford in those States even if the accidents occurred in those states. However, the Court approved specific jurisdiction of Montana and Minnesota, by rejecting Ford’s causation-only approach, instead by applying the new relationship test. This paper overviews rules of personal jurisdiction including general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction, and observes discussions in this recent Ford case.