- Study Aids
- By product
- By subject
- Law School Success
- Bar Review
A painter is a citizen of State A. One day, while the painter is using a ladder, the rung on which the painter is standing collapses. The painter falls to the ground and sustains severe injuries. The accident occurs in State A.
The ladder’s manufacturer is incorporated under the laws of State A, where its corporate headquarters and ladder-manufacturing facility are both located. Ladder sales account for approximately 75 percent of the manufacturer’s annual revenue. The manufacturer has a network of authorized ladder dealers across the United States, including the store in State A where the painter purchased the ladder.
The manufacturer builds its ladders using components purchased from other companies. For the past ten years, the manufacturer has obtained all of its ladder rungs from a single supplier. The supplier is incorporated in State A, and its rung-production facility is located in State A. However, the supplier maintains a suite of offices in State B. These offices house the supplier’s president and CEO, its human-resources department, its chief financial officer, and its sales department. The manufacturer has several ladder dealers in State B, which collectively account for approximately two percent of the manufacturer’s annual revenue.
One month after the accident, the painter moves to State B. The painter purchases a house in State B, and he obtains a State B driver’s license. The painter’s injuries require four hours of physical therapy per week; the therapy is provided by a therapist in State B. These therapy sessions are expected to continue indefinitely.
The painter has filed suit against the manufacturer and the supplier in the United States District Court for the District of State B, seeking $200,000 in damages for personal injury. The long-arm statute of State B allows personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution. The manufacturer has moved to dismiss the case against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. The supplier has moved to dismiss the case against it for both lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.