U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

Case Status


Docket Number

MDL No. 2591

Oral Argument Date

September 14, 2016


Case Updates

Kansas federal district court rejects consent to general personal jurisdiction theory

October 03, 2016

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the defendant's motion to reconsider the court’s prior refusal to dismiss non-Kansas defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. Previously, the court held that it could exercise general jurisdiction over a non-Kansas defendant that had registered to do business in the state, because the Kansas Supreme Court had interpreted its business registration statute as requiring consent to jurisdiction. After reconsidering the issue, the district court held that the Kansas business registration statute violates the Commerce Clause by requiring out-of-state businesses to consent to general jurisdiction when registering to do business in the state. Accordingly, “plaintiffs may not rely on consent by registration to establish personal jurisdiction.”

U.S. Chamber motion for leave to file denied

March 25, 2016

The U.S. Chamber asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas for permission to file an amicus brief on the question whether businesses “consent” to general personal jurisdiction wherever they register to do business. According to the Chamber’s brief, subjecting corporations to general jurisdiction in every state in which they are required to register to do business would eviscerate the due process limits on personal jurisdiction recognized by the Supreme Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014)—and could well have the practical result of exposing corporations that do business nationwide to general jurisdiction in all fifty states. The Chamber said in its motion that the proposed amicus brief would explain why that result would be irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction decisions and would impose unfair burdens on businesses, encourage forum-shopping, and inflict significant harm on the nation’s economy.

The motion for leave to file was denied, with the judge explaining, “To the extent the Chamber wishes to underscore that this court’s ruling could have an impact beyond this case, its filing of the motion for leave has accomplished that goal.”

Brennan P. Fagan and Mark T. Emert of Fagan Emery & Davis, LLC served as co-counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Case Documents