Amec Foster Wheeler plc v. Enterprise Products Operating LLC

For a State to exercise specific jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, (1) the plaintiff ’s claims must “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum”; and (2) the defendant’s contacts with the forum “must be the defendant’s own choice,” and must show that the defendant “deliberately reached out” or “purposefully avail[ed] itself of ” the forum. Ford Motor Co. v. Montana, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024–1025 (2021). Regarding the first requirement: the States are divided over whether they must conduct a claim-byclaim analysis to determine whether each claim arises from the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum. And regarding the second requirement: courts appear divided over how an “agency” theory applies when attributing an individual’s contacts with the forum to a corporate defendant for jurisdictional purposes. Here, a Texas court has asserted specific jurisdiction over a British holding company in a suit for over $700,000,000 in damages. But the court refused to conduct a claim-by-claim analysis. And the court has based its jurisdiction on the “words and actions” of employees in Texas, but refused to determine whether those words and actions were authorized by the British holding company. The questions presented are: 1. Does due process require a state court to determine whether each claim arises from or relates to the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum?