Issue:

Whether Guy Ritchie can bring a suit against LightUp, Glassworks and Homer Homemaker in FL court by asserting the minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction

Rules:

General Jurisdiction: Continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state where the cause of action does NOT arise from those contacts

Specific Jurisdiction: When ∆’s contacts are not broad; claims could be brought only related to minimum contacts (International Shoe)

Minimum Contacts Test (International Shoe), 1. Activities of non-resident are systematic and continuous for a substantial period of time, 2. Connected to action that gives rise to harm.

-In this case, minimum contacts can be established by looking at the Stream of Commerce Plus Theory (Asahi): O’Connor – Minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed towards the forum state. Only placement of product into the stream of commerce or general awareness of the product being swept into the forum state is not enough. Foreseeability of being healed into the court in a forum state is what is needed.

Analysis and Conclusion:

Glassworks sold its fixtures exclusively to LightUp however, it is no where mentioned that LightUp was exclusive to Glass Works as well. Therefore, assuming that the fixture that ended up in Madonna’s Florida home was through Glassworks, the following arguments could be made:

A. LightUp has no outlets in Florida

Defendants:

Glass Works: Glassworks counted on LightUp to exclusively sell its products and since they were well aware that LightUp sells in 15 different states it is normal to assume that Glass Works’ products could end up anywhere out of those 15 states. However, since Florida is not one of those states therefore, Glassworks could not have purposefully availed itself to conducting business in Florida via LightUp. Florida will have no jurisdiction over GlassWorks and they cannot be sued in Florida court.

LightUp: Similarly, while LightUp has purposefully availed itself to the 15 states where it conducts its business, it’s contact with Florida is not sufficient enough to establish minimum contacts. If jurisdiction by Florida Court can be exerted over LightUp, then they can literally be called into courts anywhere, where their products have travelled (World Wide Volkswagen). Mere awareness of the product being swept into the forum state is not enough without some foreseeability that defendant’s contact is substantial enough to be healed into the court in forum

state.

Homer Homemaker: Homer Homemaker intentionally and being fully aware about the lamp fixtures’ final destination, purchased it for Madonna. It was a single isolated incident but since it does bring in the question of purposeful availment as well as foreseeability, Guy Ritchie should be able to file a case in Florida Court against Homemaker. However, Homemaker may in turn claim forum non-conveins since, it will be difficult and impractical for him to travel to Florida court, and may get the case removed to California.

Plaintiff: Guy Ritchie can still claim that wide distribution by LightUp makes it a strong possibility of lamp fixtures turning up in Florida. The stream of commerce theory and the foreseeability test can be aptly applied to the situation here, as the products in question are portable items with easy mobility and therefore, their chances of being ending up in states other than where they are specifically sold are strong. Moreover, lamp fixtures being an electric item always carry with themselves the potential harm of causing several types of injuries. This should have been anticipated by LightUp and Glassworks, and jurisdiction over them would be proper.

When it comes to Homer Homemaker, he personally bought the fixtures for Madonna’s Florida home, and must have assumed to be expected personally in Florida on a professional basis. Hence, if taking up a project in Florida (even though he shipped the lamp,) was not an issue then with modern technology and easy travel options, being called into Florida court should not be inconvenient either.

Judge: The personal jurisdiction over LightUp and Glassworks will not be proper as they never purposefully placed their products into the stream of commerce targeting Florida. Additionally, since there was no business being conducted in Florida by LightUp, or any other ongoing regular activity, therefore, minimum contacts cannot be established. Allowing Florida to have personal jurisdiction would mean opening up a floodgate of litigations, wherever a lamp from GlassWorks via LightUp turns up anywhere. However, Florida does have specific personal jurisdiction over Homer Homemaker since he purposefully availed himself to the state of Florida by directly placing a product in the stream of commerce targeting Florida. Hence, in final judgment, no personal jurisdiction over LightUp and GlassWorks, but personal jurisdiction over Homer Homemaker.

B. LightUp has outlets in Florida

In this situation, Glassworks and LightUp both have purposefully availed themselves to Florida. LightUp, by conducting an ongoing regular business activity has specially targeted Florida, and it is only natural that it can expect to be called into court in Florida. Even though it is not the same lamp that is being sold in Florida then also, under the general jurisdiction theory, LightUp’s contacts are broad enough that general jurisdiction can be asserted over it.

There will be personal jurisdiction over Glassworks as well; they were fully aware of LighUp’s outlet in Florida, hence, the probability of their lamps being ending up there was strong. Even though the lamp purchased was from California, then also they have purposefully availed

themselves to Florida court as once out of their workshop, their product might end up in any of LightUp’s locations, and they can foresee being called into court in any of those states. As far as Homer Homemaker is concerned, his case will be the same as mentioned above. Hence, in final judgment, there will be general jurisdiction over LightUp, specific jurisdiction over Glassworks and Homer.