Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. LeMaire, 764 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 29 (App. Div. I, May 11, 2017) (J. Swann)
FOREIGN CORPORATION MUST BE INCORPORATED IN STATE, HAVE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN STATE OR CONSENT TO JURISDICTION IN STATE IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE GENERAL JURISDICTION FOR EVENT OCCURRING OUTSIDE STATE
Plaintiffs sued Walmart Stores Inc. [Walmart] in Maricopa County Superior Court for a slip and fall injury that occurred in an Oregon store. Walmart is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Arkansas. Wal-Mart filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the superior court denied it, finding Wal-Mart was subject to general jurisdiction in Arizona. Wal-Mart then brought this special action and the Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and granted Wal-Mart relief.
Because the facts of the case have no connection to Arizona, Wal-Mart can be sued here only if the Arizona courts have general jurisdiction over it. [plaintiff] maintains that Wal-Mart's pervasive presence and substantial business activities in Arizona are sufficient to create general jurisdiction, and any claim against Wal-Mart is therefore cognizable in Arizona. We disagree. In keeping with Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), and Daimler AG v.
Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), we hold that the magnitude of a corporation's business activities in Arizona is not sufficient to create general jurisdiction when that corporation is neither incorporated nor has its principal place of business in Arizona. We further hold that foreign corporations do not impliedly consent to general jurisdiction in Arizona merely by registering as foreign corporations and appointing agents for service of process under A.R.S. §§10-1501 to -1510. Wal-Mart therefore is subject only to specific jurisdiction in Arizona, and actions against it in the Arizona courts must relate to its activities in the state.
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment