We expect that none of our readers need reminding about the disastrous Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), holding that Pennsylvania could constitutionally (under the Due Process Clause, at least) deem the mere act of registering to do business in Pennsylvania as “consent” that permits the Commonwealth’s courts to  assert general personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations without any other contact.

At this point, Pennsylvania remains the only state with a general jurisdiction consent-by-registration statute that reaches manufacturers of prescription medical products.  Illinois recently passed a more limited consent-by-registration statute, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-209(b)(5), 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13.20(b), that applies only to “hazardous substances,” so our primary focus for Mallory problems remains Pennsylvania.

There’s been a Pennsylvania legal development that could help some defendants prevent Mallory inspired forum shopping.  It’s a recent Pennsylvania state court medical malpractice venue decision – something that may fly under the radar for non-Pennsylvania, non-medmal defense counsel.  Of course, we at the blog live for bringing this kind of case to our defense colleagues’ attention (longtime readers may remember our early advocacy of what is now called “snap removal”).Continue Reading Recent Pennsylvania Decision Suggests Partial, Longer Term Response to Our Mallory Problem