Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd v. Superior Court (Cheng Shin Rubber Indus. Co., Ltd.), No. 85-693

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJustice O'CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court with respect to Part I, the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice BRENNAN, Justice WHITE, Justice MARS
PartiesASAHI METAL INDUSTRY CO., LTD., Petitioner v. (Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd., Real Party in Interest)
Docket NumberNo. 85-693
Decision Date24 February 1987

480 U.S. 102
107 S.Ct. 1026
94 L.Ed.2d 92
ASAHI METAL INDUSTRY CO., LTD., Petitioner

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SOLANO COUNTY (Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd., Real Party in Interest).

No. 85-693.
Argued Nov. 5, 1986.
Decided Feb. 24, 1987.
Syllabus

Petitioner manufactures tire valve assemblies in Japan and sells them to several tire manufacturers, including Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co. (Cheng Shin). The sales to Cheng Shin, which amounted to at least 100,000 assemblies annually from 1978 to 1982, took place in Taiwan, to which the assemblies were shipped from Japan. Cheng Shin incorporates the assemblies into its finished tires, which it sells throughout the world, including the United States, where 20 percent of its sales take place in California. Affidavits indicated that petitioner was aware that tires incorporating its assemblies would end up in California, but, on the other hand, that it never contemplated that its sales to Cheng Shin in Taiwan would subject it to lawsuits in California. Nevertheless, in 1979, a product liability suit was brought in California Superior Court arising from a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by defects in a tire manufactured by Cheng Shin, which in turn filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnification from petitioner. Although the main suit was eventually settled and dismissed, the Superior Court denied petitioner's motion to quash the summons issued against it. The State Court of Appeal then ordered that the summons be quashed, but the State Supreme Court reversed, finding that petitioner's intentional act of placing its assemblies into the stream of commerce by delivering them to Cheng Shin in Taiwan, coupled with its awareness that some of them would eventually reach California, were sufficient to support state court jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

39 Cal.3d 35, 216 Cal.Rptr. 385, 702 P.2d 543, reversed and remanded.

Justice O'CONNOR, delivered the opinion of the Court as to Parts I and II-B, concluding that the state court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over petitioner would be unreasonable and unfair in violation of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 113-116.

(a) The burden imposed on petitioner by the exercise of state court jurisdiction would be severe, since petitioner would be required not only to traverse the distance between Japan and California, but also to submit

Page 103

its dispute with Cheng Shin to a foreign judicial system. Such unique burdens should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of extending personal jurisdiction over national borders. Pp. 113-114.

(b) The interests of Cheng Shin and the forum State in the exercise of jurisdiction over petitioner would be slight, and would be insufficient to justify the heavy burdens placed on petitioner. The only surviving question is whether a Japanese corporation should indemnify a Taiwanese corporation on the bases of a sale made in Taiwan and a shipment of goods from Japan to Taiwan. The facts do not demonstrate that it would be more convenient for Cheng Shin to litigate its claim in California rather than in Taiwan or Japan, while California's interests are diminished by Cheng Shin's lack of a California residence and by the fact that the dispute is primarily about indemnity rather than the safety of consumers. While the possibility of being sued in California might create an additional deterrent to petitioner's manufacture of unsafe assemblies, the same effect would result from pressures placed on petitioner by Cheng Shin, whose California sales would subject it to state tort law. Pp. 114-115

(c) The procedural and substantive policies of other nations whose interests are affected by the forum State's assertion of jurisdiction over an alien defendant must be taken into account, and great care must be exercised when considering personal jurisdiction in the international context. Although other nations' interests will differ from case to case, those interests, as well as the Federal Government's interest in its foreign relations policies, will always be best served by a careful inquiry into the reasonableness of the particular assertion of jurisdiction, and an unwillingness to find an alien defendant's serious burdens outweighed where, as here, the interests of the plaintiff and the forum State are minimal. P. 115.

Justice O'CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice POWELL, and Justice SCALIA, concluded in Parts II-A and III that, even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner was aware that some of the assemblies it sold to Cheng Shin would be incorporated into tires sold in California, the facts do not establish minimum contacts sufficient to render the State's exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with fair play and substantial justice as required by the Due Process Clause. Since petitioner does not do business, have an office, agents, employees, or property, or advertise or solicit business in California, and since it did not create, control, or employ the distribution system that brought its assemblies to, or design them in anticipation of sales in, California, it did not engage in any action to purposely avail itself of the California market. The "substantial connection" between a defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must derive from an action purposely directed toward the forum State, and the mere placement of a product

Page 104

into the stream of commerce is not such an act, even if done with an awareness that the stream will sweep the product into the forum State absent additional conduct indicating an intent to serve the forum state market. Pp. 108-113, 116.

Justice BRENNAN, joined by Justice WHITE, Justice MARSHALL, and Justice BLACKMUN, agreed with the Court's conclusion in Part II-B that the exercise of jurisdiction over petitioner would not comport with "fair play and substantial justice," but disagreed with the Part II-A's interpretation of the stream-of-commerce theory, and with the conclusion that petitioner did not purposely avail itself of the California market. As long as a defendant is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, jurisdiction premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce is consistent with the Due Process Clause, and no showing of additional conduct is required. Here, even though petitioner did not design or control the distribution system that carried its assemblies into California, its regular and extensive sales to a manufacturer it knew was making regular sales of the final product in California were sufficient to establish minimum contacts with California. Pp. 116-121.

Justice STEVENS, joined by Justice WHITE and Justice BLACKMUN, agreed that the California Supreme Court's judgment should be reversed for the reasons stated in Part II-B of the Court's opinion, but did not join Part II-A, for the reasons that (1) the Court's holding that the State's exercise of jurisdiction over petitioner would be "unreasonable and unfair" alone requires reversal, and renders any examination of minimum contacts unnecessary; and (2) even assuming that the "purposeful availment" test should be formulated here, Part II-A misapplies it to the facts of this case since, in its dealings with Cheng Shin, petitioner has arguably engaged in a higher quantum of conduct than the mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce. Pp. 121-122

O'CONNOR, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part I, the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A and III, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and POWELL and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. ---. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which WHITE and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. ---.

Page 105

Graydon Shaw Staring, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

Ronald R. Haven, Sacramento, Cal., for respondent.

Justice O'CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court with respect to Part I, the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice BRENNAN, Justice WHITE, Justice MARSHALL, Justice BLACKMUN, Justice POWELL, and Justice STEVENS join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A and III, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice POWELL, and Justice SCALIA join.

This case presents the question whether the mere awareness on the part of a foreign defendant that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the United States would reach the forum State in the stream of commerce constitutes "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State such that the exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940).

I

On September 23, 1978, on Interstate Highway 80 in Solano County, California, Gary Zurcher lost control of his Honda motorcycle and collided with a tractor. Zurcher was severely injured, and his passenger and wife, Ruth Ann Moreno, was killed. In September 1979, Zurcher filed a product liability action in the Superior Court of the State of

Page 106

California in and for the County of Solano. Zurcher alleged that the 1978 accident was caused by a sudden loss of air and an explosion in the rear tire of the motorcycle, and alleged that the motorcycle tire, tube, and sealant were defective. Zurcher's complaint named, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4115 practice notes
  • Proctor & Gamble Cellulose Co. v. Viskoza-Loznica, No. 95-2291-TUBRE.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • October 27, 1998
    ...`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Reynolds, 23 F.3d at 1117 (quoting Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). In making this determination, a court should consider: the burden on the defendant, the interes......
  • Franklin v. X Gear 101, LLC, 17 Civ. 6452 (GBD) (GWG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 23, 2018
    ...Thus, defendants' conduct was "purposefully directed toward the forum state," Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987), and defendants could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in New York, see, e.g., Chloé, 616 F.3d at 171 (finding minimum con......
  • In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2015
    ...jurisdiction would nonetheless be so unreasonable as to "offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial Page 69justice.'" Asahi, 480 U.S. 102 at 113 (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316); see Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477-78; Licci II, 732 F.3d at 170. The following factors are to ......
  • Hosking v. TPG Capital Mgmt., L.P. (In re Hellas Telecomms. (Luxembourg) II Sca), Case No. 12–10631 (MG)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 29, 2015
    ...offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 1. General Jurisdiction Only a narrow set of affili......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4115 cases
  • Proctor & Gamble Cellulose Co. v. Viskoza-Loznica, No. 95-2291-TUBRE.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • October 27, 1998
    ...`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Reynolds, 23 F.3d at 1117 (quoting Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). In making this determination, a court should consider: the burden on the defendant, the interes......
  • Franklin v. X Gear 101, LLC, 17 Civ. 6452 (GBD) (GWG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 23, 2018
    ...Thus, defendants' conduct was "purposefully directed toward the forum state," Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987), and defendants could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in New York, see, e.g., Chloé, 616 F.3d at 171 (finding minimum con......
  • In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2015
    ...jurisdiction would nonetheless be so unreasonable as to "offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial Page 69justice.'" Asahi, 480 U.S. 102 at 113 (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316); see Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477-78; Licci II, 732 F.3d at 170. The following factors are to ......
  • Hosking v. TPG Capital Mgmt., L.P. (In re Hellas Telecomms. (Luxembourg) II Sca), Case No. 12–10631 (MG)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 29, 2015
    ...offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 1. General Jurisdiction Only a narrow set of affili......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Restatement for Joint and Several Liability Under CERCLA After Burlington Northern
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 39-11, November 2009
    • November 1, 2009
    ...84. See generally Light, supra note 81, at 548-50 (exploring this requirement from Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. , 480 U.S. 102 (1987) through a CERCLA hypothetical based on the facts regarding Shell Oil Company in Burlington ). 85. 42 U.S.C. §9607(o) (2007), added to CER......
  • FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES, NON-SIGNATORIES, AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 1, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...(103) World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 (1980). (104) Id. at 297. (105) See Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct, 480 U.S. 102, 119 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 893 (2011)......
  • Rethinking legal globalization: the case of transnational personal jurisdiction.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 54 Nbr. 5, April 2013
    • April 1, 2013
    ...(2011). (16.) Id. at 2850-51. (17.) 131 S. Ct. 2780, 2786 (2011) (plurality opinion). (18.) Id. at 2786, 2796. (19.) Id. at 2786. (20.) 480 U.S. 102, 106, 116 (1987) (finding no personal jurisdiction in California over a Japanese manufacturer). (21.) Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2851; Nicastro, ......
  • Time for a New Shoe? Making Sense of Specific Jurisdiction: Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 87 Nbr. 2, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...475 (1985). (37) See J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011); Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102 (1987); Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. 462; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (38) See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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