## Facts

- Kathi Buss sued Wal-Mart in Arizona superior court for negligence arising from a slip-and-fall at a Wal-Mart store in Oregon.
- Wal-Mart is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Arkansas.
- The claim arose entirely from alleged conduct and injury in Oregon; no case-specific conduct was tied to Arizona.
- Buss argued Arizona courts had general jurisdiction because Wal-Mart had extensive retail and distribution operations in Arizona.
- Buss also argued Wal-Mart impliedly consented to general jurisdiction by registering as a foreign corporation in Arizona and appointing an Arizona agent for service of process under A.R.S. §§ 10-1501 to -1510.
- The superior court denied Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on an earlier Arizona decision.
- Wal-Mart sought special-action relief in the Arizona Court of Appeals from the denial of its motion to dismiss.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign corporation’s extensive in-state business operations, without incorporation or headquarters in the forum, render the corporation “at home” for purposes of general personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether registering to do business in Arizona and appointing an in-state agent for service of process under A.R.S. §§ 10-1501 to -1510 constitutes implied consent to general personal jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction and granted relief to Wal-Mart.
- The court held Arizona could not exercise general jurisdiction over Wal-Mart based solely on the magnitude of its Arizona operations because Wal-Mart was neither incorporated nor headquartered in Arizona.
- The court held Wal-Mart did not impliedly consent to general jurisdiction merely by registering as a foreign corporation and appointing an agent for service of process under Arizona statutes.
- The court determined Wal-Mart was subject in Arizona only to specific jurisdiction tied to Arizona-related conduct; because the claim arose in Oregon, specific jurisdiction was unavailable.
- The court directed that the superior court’s denial of Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss be set aside and that relief be granted consistent with lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- General jurisdiction over a corporation is ordinarily limited to the corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business; substantial forum business activity alone does not make the corporation “at home.”
- After modern due-process limits on general jurisdiction, general jurisdiction outside the paradigm forums is reserved for exceptional circumstances, not satisfied by a large commercial footprint.
- Compliance with Arizona’s foreign-corporation registration and agent-for-service statutes (A.R.S. §§ 10-1501 to -1510) does not amount to implied consent to general personal jurisdiction.
- When general jurisdiction is lacking, a forum may adjudicate claims against a corporate defendant only through specific jurisdiction, which requires the claims to relate to the defendant’s forum-related conduct.

## Conclusion

Arizona courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Wal-Mart for an Oregon slip-and-fall claim because Wal-Mart was not “at home” in Arizona and did not consent to general jurisdiction by registering to do business and appointing an agent for service of process; only forum-related claims could proceed under specific jurisdiction.


Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lemaire, 242 Ariz. 357 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017)