Gun Malfunction Litigation Will Remain in Pa., Thanks to Controversial US Supreme Court Jurisdiction Decision

“The Supreme Court rejected this due process argument almost three years ago relying on unanimous Supreme Court authority in effect when (and long before) the manufacturer registered in Pennsylvania,” U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney said.

Litigation against Sig Sauer and its P320 pistol will remain in Pennsylvania after a federal court judge determined that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway provides the court with jurisdiction over the out-of-state company.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Sig Sauer’s attempts to dismiss a group of plaintiffs’ claims over the alleged misrepresentations and failures in the design, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the P320 pistol.

Sig Sauer had moved to dismiss on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because the state’s “consent-by-registration” statute violates the dormant commerce clause and is unconstitutional under the due process clause, as it imposes an undue burden “on interstate commerce without serving any countervailing local interest” and discriminates against out-ofstate corporations, among other things.

The plaintiffs argued that Sig Sauer consented to general personal jurisdiction by registering to do business in the state as an out-of-state corporation, and that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mallory required the court to find that the state’s consent-by-registration statute doesn’t violate the due process clause or the dormant commerce clause.

In light of Mallory, the court determined that it had general personal jurisdiction over the litigation in Blade v. Sig Sauer because Sig Sauer consented to such jurisdiction by registering to do business in the Keystone State. Kearney also determined, among other things, Pennsylvania’s registration clause didn’t violate the due process or dormant commerce clauses as applied to the defendant.

Robert W. Zimmerman of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, in Philadelphia, is representing the plaintiffs and said they are happy with the decision.

Zimmerman noted that New Hampshire, where Sig Sauer is based, enacted a law last year shielding gun manufacturers like Sig Sauer from lawsuits alleging design defects, and opined his belief that the defendant’s motion to dismiss was an attempt to avoid liability in the state of Pennsylvania.

“Sig Sauer is registered to do business in the state of Pennsylvania,” Zimmerman said. “As Mallory says very clearly, that subjects a corporate defendant to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. So I think the reality is that Sig Sauer tried to get the benefits of doing business in Pennsylvania but didn’t want what comes with it, which is to be subject to jurisdiction here.”

In Mallory, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that the registration statute does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The high court relied on its 1917 ruling in Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. Gold Issue Mining and Milling decision as controlling precedent.

In that earlier case, the high court said a Missouri law requiring out-of-state companies to consent to service as a condition of doing business in the state did not violate due process, and concluded that the defendant could be sued in Missouri by an out-of-state plaintiff on an out-of-state contract because it had agreed to accept service there. In Mallory, the court reaffirmed its previous holding “that suits premised on these grounds do not deny a defendant due process of law.”

In his March 5 ruling, Kearney relied on this decision to conclude that Sig Sauer consented to jurisdiction by registering to do business in the state, and that the state’s registration law didn’t violate the defendant’s due process rights.

“The statute is clear registration carries the consequence of general personal jurisdiction,” Kearney said, noting Sig Sauer has complied with the law for many years and has agreed to be found in Pennsylvania and answer any suit in the state since 2002.

The court further held that the registration law doesn’t violate the dormant commerce clause, concluding that there was no basis to find that “the law applied to a manufacturer admittedly doing business here who chooses to consent to personal jurisdiction violates the Dormant Commerce Clause especially when claims are brought by allegedly injured Pennsylvanians among others.”

Kristen E. Dennison of Littleton Joyce Ughetta & Kelly, in Merritt Island, Florida, is representing Sig Sauer and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.