## Facts

- James T. Ainsworth, a Wayne Farms employee in Mississippi, was run over and killed by a forklift alleged to be defectively designed.
- The forklift was designed and manufactured by Moffett Engineering, Ltd., an Irish corporation based in Ireland.
- Moffett sold forklifts for the U.S. market through an exclusive U.S. distributor, Cargotec USA, Inc., which marketed and distributed Moffett forklifts nationwide.
- From 2000 to 2010, Moffett sold 13,073 forklifts to Cargotec for U.S. distribution; 203 units were sold to Mississippi purchasers, producing about $3.95 million in revenue.
- Moffett designed some forklifts for poultry-related uses; Mississippi was a major poultry-producing state.
- The decedent’s widow sued Moffett and Cargotec in federal court in Mississippi for wrongful death and product liability.
- Moffett moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; after the Supreme Court’s decision in *J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro*, Moffett renewed its jurisdictional challenge, arguing that *McIntyre* displaced Fifth Circuit stream-of-commerce precedent.

## Issues

1. Whether *J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro* abrogated Fifth Circuit stream-of-commerce precedent for specific personal jurisdiction in products-liability cases.
2. Whether Moffett’s sales through an exclusive U.S. distributor, including sales into Mississippi, created minimum contacts sufficient for Mississippi to exercise specific personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Moffett’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss.
- The court held that *McIntyre* did not overrule Fifth Circuit stream-of-commerce precedent because no controlling rule emerged from the fractured Supreme Court decision.
- Applying circuit precedent, the court concluded Moffett had sufficient minimum contacts with Mississippi based on its distribution arrangement and the volume of forklifts sold into Mississippi.
- The court accepted that the claim arose from those contacts and that exercising jurisdiction was fair and reasonable under due process.

## Legal Principles

- In diversity cases, specific personal jurisdiction must satisfy due process, requiring: (1) minimum contacts purposefully directed at the forum, (2) a nexus between those contacts and the claim, and (3) fairness and reasonableness.
- Under Fifth Circuit stream-of-commerce doctrine, minimum contacts may be shown when a manufacturer places products into the stream of commerce with the expectation they will be purchased or used in the forum state.
- A fractured Supreme Court decision lacking a controlling majority does not, without more, displace binding circuit precedent.
- A foreign manufacturer using a nationwide (including exclusive) U.S. distribution system, without limiting sales to particular states, may reasonably expect its products to be sold in states where substantial sales occur, supporting specific jurisdiction when an in-forum injury arises from such a product.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Mississippi could constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign forklift manufacturer because the manufacturer placed large numbers of products into a nationwide distribution channel that resulted in substantial Mississippi sales, and *McIntyre* did not supply a controlling rule that displaced the circuit’s stream-of-commerce approach.


Ainsworth v. Moffett Eng'g, Ltd., 716 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2013)