Auto Innovators-GAMA Amicus Brief
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nos. 19-368 and 19-369 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et al., Respondents. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ADAM BANDEMER, Respondent. On Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana and the Supreme Court of Minnesota BRIEF FOR THE ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION AND GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER DARRYL M. WOO JAIME A. SANTOS GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Counsel of Record Three Embarcadero Center STEPHEN R. SHAW San Francisco, CA 94111 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP (415) 733-6000 1900 N St., NW Washington, DC 20036 [email protected] (202) 346-4000 Counsel for Amici Curiae March 6, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ...................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................... 3 ARGUMENT............................................................... 6 I. The decisions of the Minnesota and Montana Supreme Courts erase the clear line between general and specific personal jurisdiction. ................................... 6 II. This Court should reject respondents’ unlimited stream-of-commerce theory. ..... 12 III. Respondents’ no-causation rule will create massive uncertainty and increase litigation over threshold jurisdictional issues. .................................. 22 IV. Respondents’ rule would have a particularly pernicious impact on foreign manufacturers. .............................. 24 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 29 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ...................................passim Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) .......................................... 6, 12 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) .................. 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 26, 27 D’Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009) ....... 2, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) ........................................ 6, 7, 8 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) .................................... 8, 11, 26 Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ........................................ 6, 7, 8 J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) .............................. 5, 13, 14, 20 Montgomery v. Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 414 P.3d 824 (Okla. 2018) ...................................... 2 Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987) .............................................. 27 Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) .......................... 6, 7, 11, 19, 20 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) ...................... 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 Other Authorities 14 C.F.R. pt. 21, subpt. D .......................................... 18 Joshua B. Arons, Tesla’s Right to Rise, 44 Transp. L.J. 133 (2017) ................................... 19 Associated Press, Driving an Older Car? You’re Not Alone. Average Vehicle Age Sets a Record, Autoblog (June 27, 2019, 8:30 a.m.), https://www.autoblog.com/2019/06/27/record- average-age-cars-on-road/ .................................... 15 Julie Blackley, Longest-Lasting Cars to Reach 200,000 Miles and Beyond, iSeeCars (last visited Mar. 5, 2019), https://www.iseecars.com/longest-lasting- cars-study ............................................................. 16 Gerald R. Bodisch, Economic Effects of State Bans on Direct Manufacturer Sales to Car Buyers, Economic Analysis Group (May 2009), https://www.justice.gov/atr/economic- effects-state-bans-direct-manufacturer- sales-car-buyers ................................................... 19 Mark Cooper, Bringing New Auto Sales and Service into the 21st Century, Consumer Fed’n of Am. (Oct. 2002), https://consumer fed.org/pdfs/InternetAutos102902.pdf ................ 19 General Aviation Manufacturers Association, 2019 Databook (Feb. 2020), https://gama.aero /wp-content/uploads/GAMA _2019Databook_ ForWebFinal-2020-02-19.pdf ............................... 16 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., Discovery and the Role of the Judge in Civil Law Jurisdictions, 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1017 (1998) ......................... 27 Information Collection for Importation of On- Highway Vehicles and Motorcycles and Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and Equipment, 84 Fed. Reg. 63,653 (Nov. 18, 2019) .................... 25 Office of Transp. & Mach., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, U.S. Imports of Used Passenger Vehicles Imports, Value and Units, https://legacy.trade.gov/td/otm/assets/auto/ Used_Passenger_Imports.pdf (last visited Mar. 6, 2020) ........................................................ 25 Purchase Planning Handbook, Business & Commercial Aviation (May 2017), http://assets.penton.com/digitaleditions/B CA/BCA_201705.pdf ............................................ 16 Michael Schultz et al., U.S. Consumer & Eco- nomic Impacts of U.S. Automotive Trade Pol- icies, Ctr. for Auto. Research (Feb. 2019), https://www.cargroup.org/wp-content/up- loads/2019/02/US-Consumer-Economic-Im- pacts-of-US-Automotive-Trade-Policies-.pdf ....... 24 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, The U.S. Litigation Environment and Foreign Direct Investment: Supporting U.S. Competitiveness by Reducing Legal Costs and Uncertainty, https://legacy.trade.gov/investamerica/Litiga tion_FDI.pdf (Oct. 2008) ...................................... 28 U.S. EPA, Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs), https://www.epa.gov/importing-vehicles- and-engines/independent-commercial- importers-icis (last visited Mar. 6, 2020) ............ 25 2 Waller, Antitrust & Am. Bus. Abroad (4th ed. 2018) ........................................................ 27 INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto In- novators) is the leading advocacy group for the auto industry, representing 35 automobile manufacturers and value chain partners who together produce nearly 99 percent of all light-duty vehicles sold in the United States.1 The members of Auto Innovators include (al- phabetically) Aptiv PLC, Aston Martin, Robert Bosch LLC, BMW Group, Byton, Cruise LLC, DENSO, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ferrari S.p.A., Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Honda Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Isuzu Motors Ltd., Jaguar Land Rover, Karma Automotive, Kia Mo- tors, Local Motors, Maserati, Mazda Motor Corpora- tion, McLaren Automotive, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan Motor Company, NXP Semiconductors, Panasonic Corporation, Porsche, PSA North America, SiriusXM, Subaru, Suzuki, Texas Instruments, Toyota Motor Company, Volkswagen Group of America, and Volvo Car USA. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) is an international trade association repre- senting over 120 of the world’s leading manufacturers of general aviation aircraft, engines, avionics, and components, as well as operators of maintenance fa- cilities, fixed-base operators, aircraft fleets, and pilot and technician training facilities. Throughout its fifty-year history, GAMA has been dedicated to 1 The parties consented to the filing of this brief. No counsel for a party authored any part of this brief; no party or party’s counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief; and no person other than amici cu- riae, its members, or its counsel made a monetary contribution to the brief’s preparation or submission. 2 fostering and advancing the welfare, safety, interests, and activities of the global general aviation industry. General aviation encompasses all civilian flying ex- cept scheduled commercial transport and includes business travel, medical transport, aerial firefighting, law enforcement, flight training, aerial agricultural services, surveying, and search and rescue. GAMA’s members make nearly all of the general aviation air- craft flying today, from small, single-engine propeller plans to large jets to twin-turbine helicopters. Automobile and general aviation manufacturers are responsible for billions in economic outputs and millions of jobs in the United States; moreover, they are essential to the country’s transportation infra- structure. Amici aim to protect and promote the legal and policy interests of its members and frequently file amicus curiae briefs in cases such as this one that are important to the automobile and aviation industries. See, e.g., Avco Corp. v. Sikkelee, No. 18-1140 (U.S.); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014). Amici’s members include global companies that de- sign, manufacture, and sell vehicles in various parts of the country—indeed, the world. Because vehicles like cars, trucks, and aircraft are durable and easily portable by design, amici’s members frequently face product litigation in forums throughout the United States. Like Ford’s cases before this Court, specific personal jurisdiction is a significant and recurring question in vehicle accident litigation. See also, e.g., D’Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Air- craft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009); Montgomery v. Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 414 P.3d 824 (Okla. 2018). The question presented is therefore of significant im- portance to amici’s members. Amici therefore write to 3 emphasize the potential impacts of the Court’s resolu- tion of this question on the broader automotive indus- try (including foreign manufacturers) and beyond. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Specific personal