BROADCASTS.com

b'Respondent Adam Bandemer, a Minnesota resident, was injured while riding as a passenger in Minnesota in a car manufactured by appellant Ford Motor Company. Bandemer sued Ford and others, alleging with respect to Ford that the vehicle was defectively designed, manufactured, and marketed. Ford moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing among other things that the vehicle was not designed, manufactured, or sold by Ford to a dealer in Minnesota. Following jurisdiction-related discovery, the district court found that Ford consented to jurisdiction by registering to do business in Minnesota under Minn. Stat. \\xa7 303.13 (2016) and designating an agent in Minnesota for service.\\n \\nThe court of appeals affirmed on an alternate ground, finding that Ford had sufficient minimum contacts with Minnesota to establish specific personal jurisdiction, based chiefly on Ford\\u2019s marketing activities in Minnesota and its collection of vehicle data from Minnesota drivers in its Minnesota service centers. The court of appeals concluded that Minnesota\\u2019s five-factor test to determine whether personal jurisdiction is proper, see Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp., 682 N.W.2d 565, 570 (Minn. 2004), is consistent with the Supreme Court\\u2019s recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017).\\n \\nOn appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether Ford\\u2019s contacts with Minnesota are sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction in relation to Bandemer\\u2019s claims. (Todd County)'