Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court

This case presents the question, left open in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 108-113, 117-121 [ 94 L.Ed.2d 92 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 ] and now resolved by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011) 564 U.S. ___ [ 180 L.Ed.2d 765 , 131 S.Ct. 2780 ], of *173 whether placing products into the stream of commerce in a foreign country (or another state), aware that some may or will be swept into the forum state, is enough to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction—or whether due process requires that the defendant have engaged in additional conduct, directed at the forum, before it can be found to have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state.

We conclude defendant Dow Chemical Canada ULC is not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because it did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2008, Carlos Orlando Fandino, and eight other California residents (collectively referred to as Fandino), were injured when a 1996…