Choice of Law in Complex Litigation/Class Action

Question 1

Burnham v. Superior Court

Answer 1

• Traditionally, the courts of a state had jurisdiction for any purpose over any person who could be found and served with process in that state
• Such “tag” jurisdiction was grounded in the English common law principle that actions against a person were “transitory”. It mattered not how long the person had been in the forum state or whether the cause of action related to any activities there
• International Shoe created contacts-based specific jurisdiction, but that was for absent defendants
• Such more recent cases did not undermine traditional tag jurisdiction: “Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system”

Question 2

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co

Answer 2

• Held: As a condition for registering to business there, a state may require a non-resident corporation to submit to general personal jurisdiction without offending the Due Process Clause
• The holding combines a rough corporate equivalent of the individual “tag” jurisdiction approved in Burnham with the principle that an individual could always consent to personal jurisdiction even where it would be otherwise lacking. Here, the Court says NS consented
• The decision has the potential to expand opportunities for plaintiffs to obtain PJ over corporations in state as other than where they’re at home

Question 3

In re Air Crash

Answer 3

Facts: On May 25, 1979, a DC-10 jet airplane, designed, and built by McDonnell Douglas Corporation (“MDC”), operated by American Airlines (“American”) was scheduled to fly from Chicago, Illinois to Los Angeles, California as American’s Flight 191. Shortly after takeoff from O’Hare International Airport, however, the plane lost an engine and crashed in the immediate vicinity of the airport. All two hundred seventy-one persons aboard the plane, and two persons on the ground, were killed. There were one hundred eighteen wrongful death actions arising out of the crash. These cases were originally filed in Illinois, California, New York, Michigan, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Many of the complaints alleged wrongful death counts which request awards of punitive as well as compensatory damages. The plaintiffs and their decedents are and where residents of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Puerto Rico, Japan, the Netherlands, and Saudi Arabia. The defendants in these cases are MDC and American. MDC is a Maryland corporation having its principal place of business, now and at the time of the accident, in Missouri. The plaintiffs contended MDC’s conduct in the design and manufacture of the DC-10 was egregious. That alleged misconduct occurred in California. American is a Delaware corporation. American’s place of business prior to 1979 was New York. During 1979, American moved its principal place of business to Texas. Some plaintiffs contended that, on the date of the crash, American’s principal place of business was in Texas, but American contended that its principal place of business on that date was New York. The plaintiffs contended that American’s conduct regarding the maintenance of the DC-10 was egregious. That alleged misconduct occurred in Oklahoma, site of American’s maintenance base. Using the choice-of-law rules of each state where these actions had originally been filed, the district court allowed the motion to strike punitive damage claims about American but not about MDC. The district court reached the same result about the actions filed in New York, Michigan, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii.

Rule: A state’s decision to limit punitive damages in wrongful death actions does pass constitutional muster under the rational relationship test.