Background
Virginia Pass used a Care@Home C7000 medical-alert system at her Nevada home. Her family alleged that she fell in 2021, the device failed to summon help, and she remained on the floor for 36 hours before being found; she died a week later. Her estate and children sued New Jersey-based Essence USA, which facilitated North American wholesale distribution for the device’s Israeli manufacturer, along with Pennsylvania reseller Medical Guardian. Their claims included negligence, products liability, warranty theories, and wrongful death.
Essence USA had no Nevada office, employees, bank account, or business registration and sold only to third-party resellers. Its personnel did, however, regularly attend the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas to support the manufacturer and meet existing and prospective distributors. Jurisdictional discovery showed a national-and-Canadian distribution agreement with Medical Guardian, meetings between the companies at CES, and a 2020 pricing agreement for the Care@Home line. But the plaintiffs did not establish where or how Pass’s device was purchased, who bought it, or whether any other Care@Home unit reached a Nevada consumer. The district court dismissed Essence USA for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. It reaffirmed Nevada’s “pure” stream-of-commerce test rather than the more demanding stream-of-commerce-plus approach used in some jurisdictions. Under Nevada’s test, a nonresident defendant purposefully avails itself of the forum when it places products into commerce expecting them to reach Nevada and that conduct produces a regular and anticipated flow of products into the state. Drawing on the controlling narrow concurrence in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, the court clarified that one isolated sale is not enough even under the pure test.
The evidence arguably showed that Essence USA introduced products into national commerce and expected them to reach states throughout the country. It did not show a regular flow into Nevada. Pass’s device was the only identified Nevada unit, and the record did not explain whether it was bought here, shipped here, or purchased elsewhere and brought into the state by a family member. That gap prevented the plaintiffs from showing that the product’s arrival was anything other than random, isolated, or fortuitous.
CES attendance also did not establish jurisdiction. The court confirmed that tradeshow conduct can amount to purposeful availment when a defendant comes to Nevada to market goods and solicit business. But specific jurisdiction also requires the claims to arise from or relate to those Nevada contacts. Unlike a dispute over a contract actually negotiated and signed at a Las Vegas tradeshow, the plaintiffs offered no competent evidence linking the CES meetings to Pass’s acquisition or use of the device. Speculation that a 2020 CES discussion produced the pricing arrangement was insufficient, and neither a nationwide warranty nor unexplained royalties established Nevada-directed service or sales activity.
Key Takeaways
- Nevada continues to apply the pure stream-of-commerce test: placement into commerce, an expectation that products will reach Nevada, and a regular and anticipated flow into the state.
- A single product reaching a Nevada user does not establish the required regular flow, particularly when the plaintiff cannot show how or where it was purchased.
- Attending a Las Vegas business tradeshow may establish purposeful availment, but the plaintiff must still connect the claims to the defendant’s Nevada activities.
- Plaintiffs opposing a jurisdictional dismissal need competent evidence, not inference layered on speculation, about distribution volume, purchase channels, forum-directed marketing, warranties, and the relationship between Nevada contacts and the injury.
Why It Matters
Morgan gives Nevada product-liability counsel a concrete discovery roadmap. National distribution authority, Nevada injury, and recurring CES attendance do not automatically add up to jurisdiction. Plaintiffs should seek shipment data, state-by-state sales or activation records, reseller instructions, geolocated royalty accountings, warranty service history, and evidence tying tradeshow negotiations to the product line at issue. Defendants, in turn, should document whether Nevada arrivals are isolated and whether reseller conduct is independent.
The ruling is especially important for Las Vegas commercial activity. CES participation can create Nevada contacts, but it is not all-purpose consent to suit. The operative question remains whether the particular controversy arises from or sufficiently relates to what the defendant did in Nevada.