District Court: Pennsylvania's Foreign Corporation Registration Statute Unconstitutional

In Sullivan v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)), 384 F. Supp. 3d 532, Judge Robreno broke from his colleagues in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and ruled that Pennsylvania's statute requiring foreign corporations registering to do business in the Commonwealth consent to its courts' general jurisdiction is unconstitutional. The Court also ruled that the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman renders the Third Circuit's approval of that statute in Bane v. Netlink, Inc., 925 F.2d 637 (3d Cir. 1991), no longer binding on courts in the circuit.

The plaintiff in Sullivan brought claims against dozens of defendants, including the Virginia-incorporated and -based Huntington Ingalls, Inc., alleging that her husband died because of exposure to asbestos. The alleged exposure to Huntington's asbestos occurred in Louisiana. Huntington did, however, register to do business in Pennsylvania as a foreign corporation.

Under 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 411, a foreign corporation "may not do business in this Commonwealth until it registers with the department." Pennsylvania's longarm statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5301 states that registration as a foreign corporation in Pennsylvania "shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the tribunals of this Commonwealth to exercise general personal jurisdiction over such [entities] . . ." Under the plain reading of these statutes, any foreign corporation that registers to do business in the Commonwealth has consented to general personal jurisdiction.

After Daimler, courts could exercise general jurisdiction over foreign corporations only when the corporation was "essentially at home in the foreign state." A corporation generally is "at home" where it is incorporated and where it has its principle place of business. It violates due process to subject a corporation to general jurisdiction wherever it engages in business.

In general, Pennsylvania state trial and appellate courts and federal district courts in Pennsylvania have held that Pennsylvania's compulsory consent statute is consistent with due process and Daimler. The Sullivan Court broke with these cases and held that "a mandatory regime purporting to confer consent to general jurisdiction in exchange for the ability to legally...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT