courts - jurisdiction - foreign corporation - registration in Pa. - consent

Murray v. American Lafrance, LLC – Pa. Super. – reported, published – September 25, 2018

majority        

dissent

Held:  A corporation consents to jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts when it registers as a foreign corporation under 42 Pa. C.S. 5301 (a) (2) (i-iii).

From the opinion

We observe that whether a foreign corporation consents to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by registering to do business in the Commonwealth is a matter of first impression in this Court. Our review of the caselaw has revealed that neither this Court nor our Supreme Court has had the occasion to determine whether, post-Daimler, registering to do business as a foreign corporation in the Commonwealth constitutes consent for the purposes of exercising general personal jurisdiction. However, Bors v.  Johnson & Johnson, 208 F. Supp. 3d 648 (E.D. Pa. 2016), provides a persuasive, well-reasoned analysis and we cite it with approval.

In Bors, supra, the district court considered whether Bane v. Netlink, Inc., 925 F.2d 637 (3d Cir. 1991),7 remained good law or whether Daimler eliminated consent by registration under section 5301 as a basis for jurisdiction. See Bors, supra at 653-54. The Bors court reasoned that “Pennsylvania’s statute specifically advises the registrant of the jurisdictional effect of registering to do business[,]” and concluded that “[c]onsent remains a valid form of establishing personal jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania registration statute after Daimler.” Id. at 655; see also Hegna v. Smitty’s Supply, Inc., 2017 WL 2563231, at *4 (E.D. Pa. filed June 13, 2017) (“conclud[ing] that, by registering to do business under § 5301, Smitty’s consented to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania and that its consent is still valid under Goodyear [Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011),] and Daimler.”).

In this case, Appellee registered as a foreign corporation to do business in Pennsylvania. (See Preliminary Objections, Exhibit B, at 1). In doing so, we hold that it consented to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. See Sulkava, supra at 889; Bors, supra at 655; see also Bane, supra at 640. Therefore, based on the relevant caselaw, and the language of section 5301(a), we conclude that the trial court erred when it dismissed these actions for lack of personal jurisdiction.8 Accordingly, we vacate the orders sustaining the preliminary objections, and remand these cases to the trial court.