The court noted that the Plaintiff would be allowed to complete discovery in order to determine proper jurisdiction.
The court also noted that stream of commerce is not a valid jurisdictional theory.
However, the court found that the Plaintiff’s position on the jurisdiction issue was not frivolous. Accordingly, as noted, the court allowed for jurisdictional discovery to be completed.
In this Opinion, Judge Mehalchick also addressed the applicability of the Fair Share Act.
The court also ruled that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a separate cause of action for willful and wanton misconduct or reckless indifference.
Judge Mehalchick also found the Plaintiff’s express warranty claims failed to plead that the Plaintiff purchased any product from the Defendants. As such, that claim was dismissed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.