Photoplaza, Inc., et al. v. Herbal Brands, Inc.

Personal jurisdiction exists over a non-resident defendant only if it has “certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Additionally, “the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State” arising out of contacts created with the forum by the defendant itself, and not by others who reside there. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284-85 (2014). Even with these principles, the circuits are divided over whether a “substantial connection” exists for a nonresident defendant whose only contact with the forum is the use of a third-party fulfillment company, such as Amazon, to sell products that may be purchased by buyers nationwide—some of whom happen to reside in the forum. In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged the five-circuit split. App. 21a. The Question Presented is: Whether a seller whose products ship nationwide is subject to personal jurisdiction in every forum into which even one of its products is shipped.