Whether a foreign manufacturer's conduct directed to the United States market as a whole, rather than to a particular state, provides a sufficient basis for a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

No question identified. : would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). The State of Texas consents to this request. 1. This case presents the jurisdictional question that the Court agreed to review but did not definitively resolve in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011): whether a foreign manufacturer is subject to jurisdiction based on conduct directed to the United States as a whole. In this case, two German auto manufacturers ordered a nationwide recall of vehicles here in the United States. The relevant conduct occurred overseas and targeted the American market as a whole— not any particular State—although the effects of the recall were felt in each of the 50 States. Over a dissent, a majority of the Supreme Court of Texas held that the nationwide recall was a sufficient basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over applicants in Texas. As the dissent recognized, the majority’s ruling is in conflict with this Court’s “plurality opinion in Micastro,’ which “malde] clear that a defendant’s intent to serve the U.S. market as a whole does not necessarily amount to targeting each of the fifty states.” App., infra, 65a; see id. at 90a (“The [Supreme Court of Texas]... gravely misinterprets Nicastro.”); id. at 94a (“If the [Supreme Court of Texas] wishes to repudiate the Nicastro plurality opinion, it should do so explicitly.”). The Supreme Court of Texas’s ruling also conflicts with decisions of federal and other state courts.* * See, e.g., Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC, 885 F.3d 760, 780 (3d Cir. 2018) (holding that “nationally directed efforts” to “sell products in the United States generally—not in Pennsylvania specifically” are insufficient to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendant in Pennsylvania even where the products 2. The parties have now reached a to resolve all claims in this matter. The parties have been working diligently to finalize the settlement. Once the settlement is finalized, it must be approved by the state court overseeing the pretrial proceedings in Texas, and will then be subject to an administrative notice-and-comment process required by Texas law. 3. If the settlement is not finalized and approved, applicants intend to seek review in this Court of the Texas Supreme Court’s decision. To allow the parties time to finalize and obtain necessary approvals for the settlement, applicants respectfully request a 60-day extension of time, to and including October 2, 2023, within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. The requested extension is warranted because it would potentially obviate the need to file a petition for writ of certiorari, while protecting applicants’ right to seek this Court’s review if the settlement is not finalized and approved. See, e.g., Postmates, LLC v. Winns, No. 21-1246 (Jan. 5, 2022) (granting a “60-day extension” based on applicant’s representation that it “[might] obviate the need for Postmates to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, and thus save the parties’ and Court’s resources, if the settlement is finally approved”). were sold in Pennsylvania as part of that nationwide effort); Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC, 884 N.W.2d 321, 333-334 (Minn. 2016) (“Nicastro provides a guiding principle that efforts to target the national market of the United States do not equate to contacts with a particular state simply because that state is a part of the national market.”); Statev. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co., 403 S.W.3d 726, 754-755 (Tenn. 2013) (noting that under “Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion” in Nicastro, “targeting the national market provides an insufficient basis for jurisdiction in particular states”). ROBERT J. GIUFFRA, JR. WILLIAM B. MONAHAN NICHOLAS F. MENILLO SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 MICHAEL H. STEINBERG SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Respectfully submitted. /s/ Jettrey B. Wall JEFFREY B. WALL Counsel of Record JUDSON O. LITTLETON SULLIVAN & CR