Jurisdiction – Foreign manufacturer

Listen to this article

Where a defendant German manufacturer of a metal shredder has moved to dismiss a complaint filed by a plaintiff who was injured while using the machine, that motion should be allowed because of the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the purposeful availment prong of due process.

“Plaintiff Lenroy Ryan (‘Ryan’ or ‘Plaintiff’) injured his leg when he was working on the Defendant Hammel’s machine. As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff sustained permanent injuries, including the amputation of his left leg. The machine was distributed by the remaining Defendants. …

“Plaintiff brought this suit after sustaining injuries from a metal shredder, which resulted in the amputation of his leg. On October 13, 2022, Ryan was working with the shredder manufactured by Hammel at his place of employment when the machine allegedly jammed and caused him to injure himself. The shredder involved in this incident was manufactured and sold by a German manufacturer, Hammel, to the Dutch distributor, Stoevelaar. Stoevelaar then sold the machine to Monarch Global Equipment, LLC (‘Monarch’) and shipped it to Baltimore, Maryland, on November 6, 2020. The shredder was then sold to Process, Inc. (‘Process’), which sold it to Plaintiff’s employer in Massachusetts. …

“… For reasons explained below, the Court holds that Plaintiff’s jurisdictional contention is untenable, and Hammel cannot be subjected to personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts. …

“In J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, a divided Supreme Court addressed the issue of exercising personal jurisdiction over a British manufacturer whose product was distributed by an Ohio company and caused injury to the plaintiff in New Jersey. 564 U.S. 873 (2011). …

“Sales by an independent distributor normally do not count as contacts of the manufacturer for purposes of personal jurisdiction. … Though Hammel may have targeted the United States market in general, it has not revealed an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of Massachusetts’ laws. McIntyre, 564 U.S. at 887 (plurality opinion). Hammel has no offices or employees in the forum, nor does it pay Massachusetts taxes or own property in the state. Plaintiff has not alleged, nor does the record at this stage support the inference, that Hammel advertises in or has sent employees to Massachusetts. The trade shows Hammel employees attended were not in Massachusetts. Therefore, even under the McIntyre concurrence’s adoption of the ‘stream of commerce plus’ theory, Plaintiff has not shown ‘something more’ to support the contention that Hammel specifically targeted Massachusetts. …

“Unlike the manufacturer in Knox [v. MetalForming, Inc., 914 F.3d 685 (1st Cir. 2019)], which retained the ability to direct where its products went, sold dozens of expensive products into the forum for nearly two decades, and initiated an ongoing relationship with its in-forum customers, Hammel lacked the ability to control the final location of its products and knew only ‘that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states.’ McIntyre, 564 U.S. at 879. Plaintiff has pointed to the possible presence of a second Hammel shredder in Massachusetts, but as the court reasoned in McIntyre, even four machines in the forum state were insufficient to exercise personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer defendant. … Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Hammel’s contacts evince purposeful availment of the protections and benefits of Massachusetts law. For this reason alone, exercising personal jurisdiction over Hammel would violate due process. …

“Even assuming arguendo that Hammel had purposely availed itself of the Massachusetts market, exercising personal jurisdiction would not satisfy the third prong of due process because it would not be reasonable. …

“… On balance, the ‘Gestalt’ factors make pellucid what was already clear: exercising jurisdiction over Hammel would not be reasonable. Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the purposeful availment prong of due process cannot be overcome.”

Ryan v. Process, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-244-25) (15 pages) (Kelley, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-CV-11054-AK) (April 28, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.