Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS, et al. v. Nam Chuong Huynh, et al.

The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant only when the plaintiff ’s claims “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s forum activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (citation omitted). Moreover, “the defendant’s suit related conduct [must] create a substantial connection with the forum State.” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014). Finally, “restrictions on personal jurisdiction are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.” BristolMyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780-81 (2017) (internal quotes and citations omitted). The question presented is: Whether the “but for” causation test for personal jurisdiction, applied by Washington State and a minority of other jurisdictions, can survive this Court’s recent personal jurisdiction case law, when the test sweeps a foreign defendant into Washington state court to answer claims based on conduct that occurred thousands of miles away in a foreign country, based solely on a contractual connection that is unrelated to the alleged tort or the defendant’s suit related conduct giving rise to that claim.