When minimum contacts have been established, often the interests of the plaintiff and the forum in the exercise of jurisdiction will justify even the serious burdens placed on the alien defendant. The court found that, "[a]lthough Asahi did not design or control the system of distribution that carried its valve assemblies into California, Asahi was aware of the distribution system's operation, and it knew that it would benefit economically from the sale in California of products incorporating its components.". In the present case, for example, the State Court of Appeal did not read the Due Process Clause, as interpreted by World-Wide Volkswagen, to allow, "mere foreseeability that the product will enter the forum state [to] be enough by itself to establish jurisdiction over the distributor and retailer.". 76180 (Super. its dispute with Cheng Shin to a foreign judicial system. Part II-B establishes, after considering the factors set forth in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 444 U. S. 292 (1980), that California's exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi in this case would be "unreasonable and unfair." Asahi Metal Industry Co v. Superior Court Case Brief. for Cert. The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. Asahi is not the last word from the Supreme Court on the stream of commerce. . See Born, Reflections on Judicial Jurisdiction in International Cases, to be published in 17 Ga.J.Int'l & Comp.L. There isn't a majority in the opinion, only a plurality. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), decided on February 24, 1987, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court decided whether a foreign corporation, by merely being aware that its products could end up in the forum state and into the American "stream of commerce" which later caused injuries, satisfied the minimum contact necessary to satisfy jurisdictional due process requirements. Id. to Pet. Specifically, Asahi moved to quash Cheng Shin's summons. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Considering the international context, the heavy burden on the alien defendant, and the slight interests of the plaintiff and the forum State, the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a California court over Asahi in this instance would be unreasonable and unfair. Pp. (c) The procedural and substantive policies of other nations whose interests are affected by the forum State's assertion of jurisdiction over an alien defendant must be taken into account, and great care must be exercised when considering personal jurisdiction in the international context. Rockwell International Corp. v. Costruzioni Aeronautiche Giovanni Agusta, 553 F. Supp. Petitioner manufactures tire valve assemblies in Japan and sells them to several tire manufacturers, including Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co. (Cheng Shin). The Court of Appeals, adopting the reasoning of the District Court in that case, noted that, although it "does not doubt that Arakawa could have foreseen that its product would find its way into the United States," it would be "manifestly unjust" to require Arakawa to defend itself in the United States. 328 (ED Pa. 1982). at 444 U. S. 295-296. The Supreme Court of California argued that the State had an interest in "protecting its consumers by ensuring that foreign manufacturers comply with the state's safety standards." California in and for the County of Solano. Order Denying Motion to Quash Summons, Zurcher v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co., No. The reasoning of the Supreme Court of California in the present case illustrates the former interpretation of World-Wide Volkswagen. We now find this latter position to be consonant with the requirements of due process. A court must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief.