Walden v. Fiore

Case Updates

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit holding that because the defendant had no other connections with Nevada and his contacts cannot be decisive in determining in his rights, the district court in Nevada cannot exercise jurisdiction here.

In its brief, NCLC urged the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling of the Ninth Circuit, which dramatically expands the reach of federal courts by broadly interpreting the “effects test”for personal jurisdiction. NCLC argued in its amicus brief that jurisdiction based on the effects of a nonresident defendant's out-of-state conduct requires that the defendant expressly aim that conduct at the forum. NCLC urged the Court the narrowly construe the so-called effects test due to its lack of historical pedigree. NCLC argued that the Ninth Circuit's formulation of the effects test does not comport with the due process limits on the exercise of personal jurisdiction and pointed out that the constitutional standard for the effects test does not depend on whether the defendant is engaged in commercial activity. Additionally, NCLC pointed out that Congress has declined to authorize the sweeping theory of jurisdiction employed by the Ninth Circuit.