Reference no: EM132290757

Please re-read case 3.1 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operation v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011) on page 87. This case deals with the concept of the minimum contacts necessary to establish legal jurisdiction. Read the case carefully, and when you are done, answer the following questions:

Why didn’t the parents of the boys in this case initiate their lawsuit against the foreign subsidiaries of Goodyear USA in a French court?

Does this decision mean that the boys’ parents are without any legal recourse against Goodyear’s foreign subsidiaries?

The parent company in this case is Goodyear USA, an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in the state of Ohio. Would the courts in North Carolina have personal jurisdiction over Goodyear USA in this case? Why or why not?

What if the executives of Goodyear’s foreign subsidiaries had attended a business retreat in North Carolina? Would their presence in North Carolina allow a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the foreign subsidiaries in this case?

Focus on Critical Thinking: Why does the Court refer to the Due Process Clause in this decision? Also, should courts automatically deem a foreign subsidiary to share the “home” of its parent corporation for purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction over the foreign subsidiary?