Interstate Pollution and the Quandary of Personal Jurisdiction

At the outset, it is useful to consider a hypothetical. The Hobbs Industrial Company (“Hobbs”) operates a concrete production plant in Michigan. The plant is situated next to a river, which the company uses for a variety of purposes, including waste disposal. In violation of relevant environmental statutes, Hobbs knowingly dispenses of concrete discharge into the river, despite knowing that this discharge could result in downstream water contamination. Hobbs is also aware that the river runs into Ohio and provides water to several municipalities along its banks. Evidently, one of these municipalities, the City of Cedar (“Cedar”), starts to feel the effects of these discharges: the river, once teeming with fish, seems to yield fewer and fewer fish each year; the riverbanks are sullied with municipal signs warning of toxic discharge, and water treatment costs spike and increasingly contaminated drinking water leads to a spur of illness among Cedar’s residents. Frustrated by the loss of a once great resource, the City of Cedar decides to sue Hobbs in Ohio state court. Hobbs responds by filing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Read the full article.