Opinion ID: 4205294
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Personal Jurisdiction

Text: ¶13 In Tyrrell, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this Court’s exercise of general personal jurisdiction over BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”) in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act suit brought in Montana by two non-resident plaintiffs that sustained injuries outside the State. In light of the peculiar statutory nuances of the FELA, we held that general jurisdiction existed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The Court stated that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not permit a State to hale an out-of-state corporation before its courts when the corporation is not ‘at home’ in the State and the episode-in-suit occurred elsewhere.” Tyrrell, ___ U.S. at ___, 137 S. Ct. at 1554 (citing Diamler, 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 753-54) (emphasis in the original). The Court concluded: BNSF [is not] so heavily engaged in activity in Montana “as to render [it] essentially at home” in that State. See Daimler, 571 U. S., at ___, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624, 633(internal quotation marks omitted). As earlier noted, BNSF has over 2,000 miles of railroad track and more than 2,000 employees in Montana. But, as we observed in Daimler, “the general jurisdiction inquiry does not focus solely on the magnitude of the defendant’s in-state contacts.” Id., at ___, n. 20, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624, 641 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Rather, the inquiry “calls for an appraisal of a corporation’s activities in their entirety”; “[a] corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them.” Ibid. In short, the business BNSF does in Montana is sufficient to subject the railroad to specific personal jurisdiction in that State on claims related to the business it does in Montana. But in-state business, we clarified in Daimler and Goodyear, does not suffice to permit 6 the assertion of general jurisdiction over claims like [Plaintiffs’] that are unrelated to any activity occurring in Montana. Tyrrell, ___ U.S. at ___, 137 S. Ct. at 1559. ¶14 As noted above, Continental is incorporated in Oklahoma and maintains its principal place of business in Oklahoma. Although it does substantial business in Montana and maintains substantial contacts with Montana, it cannot be said to be “at home” in Montana for purposes of establishing general personal jurisdiction within the parameters established in Tyrrell. Thus, Continental is not subject to general personal jurisdiction in Montana.