J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro
Citation: 564 U.S. 873 (2011)
Facts
A New Jersey worker was injured by a metal-shearing machine manufactured by J. McIntyre, a British company. McIntyre sold its products through a U.S. distributor and sent representatives to trade shows in the U.S. (none in New Jersey). Up to four of its machines ended up in New Jersey.
Issue
Does a foreign manufacturer’s use of a U.S. distributor and attendance at national trade shows establish personal jurisdiction in New Jersey, where some of its products foreseeably ended up?
Holding
No jurisdiction over McIntyre in New Jersey. The Court again fragmented: four justices (Kennedy) applied the O’Connor “plus” test strictly — McIntyre had not specifically targeted New Jersey; three justices (Breyer) concurred in the result but rejected the plurality’s categorical approach; two dissented.
Rule
Fragmented result: No majority opinion. The plurality requires that the defendant must specifically target the forum state — nationwide distribution through a third party, without more, does not constitute purposeful availment in any particular state where the product ends up. The Breyer concurrence is narrower: this case fails on its facts under existing doctrine.
Significance
- Further entrenches the stream-of-commerce circuit split from Asahi
- No majority for any clear rule; lower courts apply varying approaches
- Demonstrates the difficulty of applying personal jurisdiction doctrine to global manufacturing and distribution chains
- Kennedy plurality signals that foreseeability + awareness is not enough — there must be state-specific targeting