in any media calculated to reach Oklahoma. In fact. conceded at oral argument, there was no showing that any automobile sold by World- Wide or Seaway has ever entered Oklahoma with the single exception of the vehicle involved in the present case. 33. Precisely explain why the United States Supreme Court reversed the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and the relevance of federalism and foreseeability to the reversal. D. THE STREAM OF COMMERCE METAPHOR AND REASONABLENESS ASAHI METAL INDUS. CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT (1987) Supreme Court of the United States 480 U.S. 102 JUSTICE O'CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court with respect to Part I, the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE POWELL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A and III, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE POWELL, and JUSTICE SCALIA join. This case presents the question whether the mere awareness on the part of a foreign defendant that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the United States would reach the forum State in the stream of commerce constitutes "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State such that the exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " On September 23, 1978, on Interstate Highway 80 in Solano County, California, Gary Zurcher lost control of his Honda motorcycle and collided with a tractor. Zurcher was severely injured, and his passenger and wife, Ruth Ann Moreno, was killed. In September 1979, Zurcher filed a product liability action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano. Zurcher alleged that the 1978 accident wa caused by a sudden loss of air and an explosion in the rear tire of the motorcycle, and alleged that the motorcycle tire, tube, and sealant were defective. Zurcher's complain named, Honda [and] Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. (Cheng Shin), th Taiwanese manufacturer of the tube. Cheng Shin in turn filed a cross-complaint seekin indemnification from its codefendants and from petitioner, Asahi Metal Industry Co Ltd. (Asahi), the manufacturer of the tube's valve assembly. Zurcher's claims again Cheng Shin and the other defendants were eventually settled and dismissed, leavi only Cheng Shin's indemnity action against Asahi. The Supreme Court of the State of California . . . found the exercise of jurisdict ver Asahi to be consistent with the Due Process Clause. It concluded that Asahi kr hat some of the valve assemblies sold to Cheng Shin would be incorporated into ubes sold in California, and that Asahi benefited indirectly from the sale in CalifoCH. 16 PERSONAL JURISDICTION toducts "components components. The court considered Agghi's intentional act of Placing its components into the stream of comm rce-that is, by delivering the planponents to opens shin in Taiwan-coupled with Asahi's awareness to ess that some of the components willrisdiction ty find their way into Californie sufficient to form the ones "or state court jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. II Tustice O'connor's opinion referred to the ruling in World-Wide Volkswagen hiring "will end up in freeability that a product placed in the stream of communi red fendant wired; in the forum state to be sufficient for the defendant to be subject to the personal jurisdiction in the state.] The "substantial connection" between the defendant and the forum State necessary a findingdirectedtowontacts must come about by an action of the defendant for Bosefully directed toward the forum State. The placement of a product into the stream Picommerce, thin more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward to serve the market in the litional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose t in the forum State, for example, designing the product for the market " The forum State, advertising in the forum State establishing channels for providing in lar advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent agent in the forum State . But a disondant's awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into der forum state does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum State. II B She then went on to conclude that even if minimum contacts existed, the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable in this particular case. We have previously explained that the determination of the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction in each case will depend on an evaluation of several factors. A Burt must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and The plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief. It must also weigh in its determination "the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies." World-Wide Volkswagen. A consideration of these factors in the present case clearly reveals the unreasonableness of the assertion of jurisdiction over Asahi, even apart from the question of the placement of goods in the stream of commerce. Certainly the burden on the defendant in this case is severe. Asahi has been commanded by the Supreme Court of California not only to traverse the distance between Asahi's headquarters in Japan and the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Solano, but also to submit its dispute with Cheng Shin to a foreign nation's judicial system. The unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign lega240 PERSONAL JURISDICTION CH. 16 system should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders. When minimum contacts have been established. often the interests of the plaintin and the forum in the exercise of jurisdiction will justify even the serious burdens placed on the alien defendant. In the present case, however, the interests of the plaintiff and the forum in California's assertion of jurisdiction over Asahi are slight. All that remains is a claim for indemnification asserted by Cheng Shin, a Taiwanese corporation, against Asahi. The transaction on which the indemnification claim is based took place in Taiwan: Asahi's components were shipped from Japan to Taiwan. Cheng Shin has not demonstrated that it is more convenient for it to litigate its indemnification claim against Asahi in California rather than in Taiwan or Japan. Because the plaintiff is not a California resident, California's legitimate interests in the dispute have considerably diminished. 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." The State Supreme Court's definition of California's interest, however, was overly broad. The dispute between Cheng Shin and Asahi is primarily about indemnification rather than safety standards Moreover, it is not at all clear at this point that California law should govern the question whether a Japanese corporation should indemnify a Taiwanese corporation on the basis of a sale made in Taiwan and a shipment of goods from Japan to Taiwan. The possibility of being haled into a California court as a result of an accident involving Asahi's components undoubtedly creates an additional deterrent to the manufacture of unsafe components; however, similar pressures will be placed on Asahi by the purchasers of its components as long as those who use Asahi components in their final products, and sell those products in California, are subject to the application of California tort law. World-Wide Volkswagen also admonished courts to take into consideration the interests of the "several States," in addition to the forum State, in the efficient judicial resolution of the dispute and the advancement of substantive policies. In the present case, this advice calls for a court to consider the procedural and substantive policies of other nations whose interests are affected by the assertion of jurisdiction by the California court. The procedural and substantive interests of other nations in a state court's assertion of jurisdiction over an alien defendant will differ from case to case. In every case, however, those interests, as well as the Federal interest in Government's foreign relations policies, will be best served by a careful inquiry into the reasonableness of the assertion of jurisdiction in the particular case, and an unwillingness to find the serious burdens on an alien defendant outweighed by minimal interests on the part of the plaintiff or the forum State. "Great care and reserve should be exercised when extending our notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field." 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. III Because the facts of this case do not establish minimum contacts such that the xercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice, theCH. 16 PERSONAL JURISDICTION 241 jement of the Supreme Court of California is reversed, and the ca further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. he case is remanded for NICE BETin concurring fom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and Justice JUS CKMUN join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment do not agree with the interpretation in Part II-A of the stream-of-commerce theory. with the corecution that Asahi did not "purposely avail itself of the Callforge Market. " I do agree, however, with the Court's conclus mepersonal jurisdiction over Asahi in this case would not compo ubstantial justice." This is one of those rare cases in w nclusion in P Part II-B that the exercise ort with "fair play and in which " minimum requirements Sherent In theconcept of fair play and subst cases in which Want the reasonablemen ijurisdictionpantough the defendant has mal justice . . . dread inforum activities. ofjwerefore join the and -B of the Court's opinion and write separately to explor my disagreement with The stream of commerce refers not to unpredictable currents or eddies, but to the lar and anvicenteflow of products from manufacture to distribution to retail sales re long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed As he forum state . the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise . Nor wi onding benefit. A defendant The litig laced goods in the stream and there is no corresponding fly from the retail who of the final product in the forum State, and indirectly benefits from the State's laws sant regulate and facilitate commercial activity These benefits accrue regardless of thather that participant directly conducts business in the forum State, or engages in Whitional conduct directed toward that State. Accordingly, most courts and Ammentators have found that jurisdiction premised on the placement of a product into Cop stream of commerce is consistent with the Due Process Clause, and have not required a showing of additional conduct. * * * The Court in World-Wide Volkswagen thus took great care to distinguish "between case involving goods which reach a distant State through a chain of distribution and a age involving goods which reach the same State because a consumer . . . took them here." The California Supreme Court took note of this distinction, and correctly "included that our holding in World-Wide Volkswagen preserved the stream-of commerce theory. In this case, the facts found by the California Supreme Court support its finding of inimum contacts. The court found that "[allthough Asahi did not design or control the stem of distribution that carried its valve assemblies into California, Asahi was aware the distribution system's operation, and it knew that it would benefit economically om the sale in California of products incorporating its components." Accordingly, I nnot join the determination in Part II-A that Asahi's regular and extensive sales of mponent parts to a manufacturer it knew was making regular sales of the final product California is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with California.242 PERSONAL JURISDICTION CH. 16 DIRECTED READING QUESTIONS 34. Justice O'Connor and Justice Brennan both agree that conceptualizing commercial distribution systems as the "stream of commerce" is useful in determining whether a defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State," thereby creating minimum contacts with the forum state. Describe the difference between the ways each uses the "stream of commerce" metaphor to establish minimum contacts of the defendant in a state where the defendant's product ends up and causes harm. 35. Explain how Justice O'Connor's stream of commerce test is similar to Justice White's opinion in World-Wide Volkswagen. 36. Explain how Justice Brennan's stream of commerce test is similar to the Oklahoma Supreme Court's test in World-Wide Volkswagen. 37. Justice O'Connor concludes that minimum contacts do not exist in this case, while Justice Brennan concludes that minimum contacts exist, but both agree that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the California court here would be "unreasonable." What factors does the court analyze to conclude that jurisdiction is unreasonable? 38. Explain the Court's analysis of the factors you identified in determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is unreasonable. In doing this, it will be helpful to do the following while paying attention to where each of the parties is from: (1) diagram the original law suit filed by the plaintiff against Honda and Cheng Shin; (2) diagram the lawsuit after Cheng Shin filed the cross claim seeking indemnification against Asahi; and (3) diagram the lawsuit after the plaintiff settled with Honda and Cheng Shin. 39. What is the role of the reasonableness analysis in determining whether personal jurisdiction exists? J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. V. NICASTRO (2011) Supreme Court of the United States 564 U.S. 873 USTICE KENNEDY announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, hich THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE THOMAS join. Whether a person or entity is subject to the jurisdiction of a state court despite r ving been present in the State either at the time of suit or at the time of the alleg ury, and despite not having consented to the exercise of jurisdiction, is a question t