Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mallory V Norfolk 802 EDA 2018 Pennsylvania Superior Court - 07.15.2020 Application To File Supplement Brief (Including Exhibits) - 12pp
Mallory V Norfolk 802 EDA 2018 Pennsylvania Superior Court - 07.15.2020 Application To File Supplement Brief (Including Exhibits) - 12pp
EASTERN DISTRICT
ROBERT MALLORY,
Appellant,
v.
Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
pursuant to Pa.R.App.P. 123 and 2501(a) for leave to file the short supplemental
2. The parties have completed briefing of this appeal, but a date for
Murray v. American LaFrance, LLC, No. 2105 EDA 2016, which also raised the
issue of whether a foreign corporation that registers to do business in Pennsylvania
December 20, 2018, Norfolk Southern moved for a stay of this appeal pending the
outcome of the Court’s en banc review in Murray. The application for stay was
American LaFrance, LLC, et al., No. 2105 EDA 2016, 2020 PA Super 149 (Pa.
Super. June 25, 2020). In its decision, the en banc panel affirmed the lower court
decision on waiver grounds, noting that it “regrettably” could not address the
5. During the pendency of the stay of this matter, there have been a
in the form attached as Exhibit A, in an effort to bring these new authorities to the
Court’s attention.
Supplemental Brief.
Respectfully submitted,
Appellant,
v.
Appellee.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this 15th day of July, 2020, serving the foregoing
Application for Leave to Submit Supplemental Brief, upon the persons indicated
below via the Court’s electronic filing system, which service satisfies the
ROBERT MALLORY,
Appellant,
v.
Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
involving the central issue in this appeal, namely whether a foreign corporation
business under a statutory regime that conditions the right to do business on the
Southern’s brief, which was filed on October 23, 2018, and while this case was
stayed pending the en banc decision in Murray, et al. v. American LaFrance, LLC,
et al., No. 2105 EDA 2016, 2020 PA Super 149 (Pa. Super. June 25, 2020).
7
Notably, in declining to decide the jurisdictional issue in Murray, this Court
We do not take this decision lightly. The argument that Plaintiffs assert
on appeal implicates an issue that has generated abundant scholarly
commentary. Further, Pennsylvania’s unique jurisdictional framework
sets it apart from other jurisdictions that have confronted the related
issue regarding whether corporate registration is tantamount to implied
consent. Indeed, recent district court decisions have taken divergent
views of this issue in relation to Pennsylvania’s jurisdictional statute.
Compare In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 384
F.Supp.3d 532, 540-41 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (“mandatory statutory regime
purporting to confer consent to general jurisdiction in exchange for the
ability to legally do business in a state is contrary to the rule in Daimler
and, therefore, can no longer stand.”), with Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent, ––
– F.Supp.3d ––––, ––––, 2020 WL 951082, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27,
2020) (“Pennsylvania’s consent-by-registration statute is
constitutional.”). Although the parties and amici curiae all presented
compelling arguments about this issue in their briefs to this Court,
regrettably we simply cannot address those competing perspectives
without the benefit of the trial court’s vetting of the issue in the first
instance.
While state and federal courts “have struggled to divine the applicability of
Daimler to the Pennsylvania registration scheme with mixed results,” the most
comprehensive analysis of the issue comes from a decision issued last year by the
1
As previously articulated in Norfolk Southern’s brief, the Court in Webb-Benjamin,
LLC v. International Rug Group, 192 A.3d 1333 (Pa. Super. 2018) did not address
the federalism concerns at issue herein.
7
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in In re Asbestos
Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 384 F. Supp. 3d 532, 534 (E.D. Pa. 2019). In
a well-reasoned opinion, Judge Robreno held that (1) the Pennsylvania jurisdiction-
general jurisdiction that Daimler firmly closed” and therefore “violates the Due
Process Clause and is unconstitutional”; and (2) the Third Circuit’s pre-Daimler
decision in Bane v. Netlink, Inc., 925 F.2d 637 (3d Cir. 1991) is irretrievably
irreconcilable with the teachings of Daimler, and can no longer stand. Id. at 543-45.
knowing and voluntary and, thus, valid, he determined that the consent extracted by
in Pennsylvania.” Id. at 541.2 In other words, the statutory scheme “conditions the
2
Judge Robreno also noted that while a foreign corporation could do business
illegally without the protection of the court system, “the choice of doing business
illegal[ly] is no more of a choice than not doing business in the state at all.” Id. at
541 n.10.
7
the constitutional right, recognized in Daimler, to be subject to general personal
jurisdiction only where the corporation is ‘at home.’” Id. “Given the fundamental
importance of the ability to engage in interstate commerce, ... the mandatory nature
Id. at 542. As a result, the purported “consent” to general jurisdiction via registering
It is for that reason that Judge Robreno found that the Pennsylvania statutory
“the Supreme Court has recognized that the state cannot condition a benefit generally
available to others in the state on the surrender of a constitutional right.” Id. at 541.
The Pennsylvania statutory scheme, however, does exactly that. All persons and
entities appearing before any court in the United States are entitled to certain Due
Process rights. U.S. Const. Amend. V & XIV. As the Supreme Court held in
7
In Reynolds v. Turning Point Holding Co., 2020 WL 953279 (E.D. Pa. Feb.
26, 2020) (Wolson, J.), Judge Robreno’s holding was explicitly adopted. Id. at *5
(“... having reviewed the decisions cited above, this Court agrees with and adopts as
its own Judge Robreno’s analysis in In re Asbestos ... The Pennsylvania statutory
Clause.”); see also Fend v. Allen-Bradley Co., 2019 WL 6242119 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20,
2019) (Judge Robreno affirmed his prior ruling that “Pennsylvania’s statutory
consent to general personal jurisdiction, offends the Due Process Clause and is
Com. Pl. June 27, 2019) (Shreeves-Johns, J.) (opining that the consent-by-
registration statute violates the Due Process Clause and requesting a “clear ruling
of Judge Robreno’s position, but have felt constrained by the holding in Bane. See,
e.g., Replica Auto Body Panels v. Intech Trailers, Inc., 2020 WL 1891890 (M.D. Pa.
Apr. 16, 2020) (Brann, J.) (“Were I deciding this issue on a blank slate, I would be
remains controlling law in this Circuit”); Berk v. Equifax, 2020 WL 868128 (E.D.
7
Pa. Feb. 21, 2020) (Diamond, J.) (“I agree with Judge Robreno that the ‘consent’
that the Supreme Court has condemned… Although Judge Robreno’s analysis is
plainly correct, in the circumstances presented, I will err on the side of caution and
follow Bane, which remains the law of this Circuit.”); Winters v. Azko Nobel Surface
Chemistry, LLC, 2020 WL 2474428 (E.D. Pa May 13, 2020) (Schmehl, J.) (“Until
there is a change in the applicable Third Circuit law, we are bound by the rulings of
the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court”); Youse v. Johnson & Johnson, 2019 WL
233884, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2019) (Baylson, J.) (“Without the Third Circuit
personal jurisdiction”); Smith v. NMC Woolard, Inc., 2020 WL 1975074 (E.D. Pa.
Apr. 24, 2020) (Beetlestone, J.) (same); Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent, 2020 WL 951082
(E.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2020) (Savage, J.) (same); Williams v. Takeda Pharms. Am. Inc.,
2019 WL 2615947, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2019) (Pappert, J.) (same); Healthcare
Services Group v. Moreta, 2019 WL 6117353 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2019) (DuBois, J.)
(same).
7
Because this Court is not constrained by the holding in Bane, which found
“consent” without any analysis and without the benefit of the U.S. Supreme Court’s
of “consent” under § 5301 is invalid and violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Respectfully submitted,