Clarifying Jurisdictional and Pleading Standards in Multi-Defendant Product Liability Actions

Introduction

Case Name: Sarah Cordle v. Enovis Corp.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Date: June 3, 2025
File No.: 25-a0269n.06, No. 24-5958

In this product-liability appeal, plaintiff Sarah Cordle—through her next friend and mother, Dorothy Cordle—challenged the dismissal of her suit against Enovis Corporation (formerly Colfax), DJO Global, Inc., and DJO, LLC (collectively “the defendants”). Cordle alleged that a prescribed knee brace (“Donjoy”) malfunctioned during athletic activity, causing severe injury requiring multiple surgeries and ongoing treatment. The district court dismissed her claims for lack of personal jurisdiction over Enovis and for failure to state a plausible claim against any defendant, denying leave to amend a second time. Cordle now appeals those rulings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court in full. Key holdings included:

The district court properly found no personal jurisdiction over Enovis under Kentucky’s long-arm statute and federal due process because Cordle made only perfunctory allegations—registration to do business alone does not satisfy the “transacting any business” requirement.
Cordle’s proposed second amended complaint failed to plead causation with respect to each defendant. Broad, group-based assertions did not permit a reasonable inference that any individual entity “substantially caused” her harm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing or grant indefinite leave to amend, given repeated notice of deficiencies and the futility of further amendment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Air Prods. & Controls, Inc. v. Safetech Int’l, Inc. (503 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2007)): De novo review of personal jurisdiction determinations.
Blessing v. Chandrasekhar (988 F.3d 889, 901 (6th Cir. 2021)): Two-step inquiry under Kentucky law—(1) long-arm statute; (2) federal due process.
Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Beach (336 S.W.3d 51, 57 (Ky. 2011)): Kentucky long-arm requires that “cause of action arises from” the enumerated conduct.
McPherson v. Kelsey (125 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir. 1997)): Issues not developed below are deemed waived.
Dean v. Motel 6 Operating L.P. (134 F.3d 1269, 1273–74 (6th Cir. 1998)): Parent-subsidiary relationship alone does not establish jurisdiction over the parent for the subsidiary’s acts.
Theunissen v. Matthews (935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir. 1991)): Discretionary standard for evidentiary hearings on jurisdiction.
Serras v. First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n (875 F.2d 1212, 1214 (6th Cir. 1989)): When hearings are warranted to resolve factual disputes.
King v. Ford Motor Co. (209 F.3d 886, 893 (6th Cir. 2000)): Kentucky product liability requires that defendant’s conduct be a “substantial factor in bringing about” plaintiff’s harm.
Stiens v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. (626 S.W.3d 191, 199 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020)): Restatement of Kentucky causation standard.
Farmer v. City of Newport (748 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988)): Recognition of the “concert of action” theory in product liability.
Foman v. Davis (371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)): Amendment may be denied if proposed changes are futile.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)): Plausibility standard for pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6).

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal analysis unfolded in two major parts:

Personal Jurisdiction over Enovis.
- Long-Arm Statute: Kentucky Rev. Stat. § 454.210(2)(a) authorizes jurisdiction over nonresidents who “transact any business” in Kentucky, but the plaintiff’s cause of action must “arise from” that transaction. Cordle alleged only that Enovis was registered and had a registered agent—insufficient to tie the specific product sale or design activity to Kentucky.
- Due Process: Even if Enovis’s forum contacts were sufficient, exercising jurisdiction must comport with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Cordle made no attempt to carry her burden under either prong; perfunctory arguments were waived under McPherson.
- No Evidentiary Hearing Required: The district court permissibly declined a hearing when Cordle’s filings did not raise unresolved factual disputes warranting credibility determinations. (See Serras, Theunissen.)
Failure to State a Claim & Denial of Further Amendment.
- Plausibility and Causation: Under Iqbal/Twombly and Kentucky product-liability law, a plaintiff must allege facts showing each defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Cordle’s complaints uniformly fell back on group-based allegations—“the defendants as a group designed/manufactured/distributed” the brace—without attributing any specific role or act to any entity.
- Concert of Action Theory: Kentucky allows holding multiple actors jointly liable when they act in concert. But to invoke it, a plaintiff must allege cooperative or concerted activities. Cordle’s pleadings contained no facts about how the entities coordinated design or distribution.
- Futility of Amendment: Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) favors liberal amendment, but Foman v. Davis permits denial if the proposed amendment cannot survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Here, repeated deficiencies in pleading causation and entity-specific conduct rendered further amendment futile.

Impact

This decision reinforces two critical thresholds in federal diversity suits governed by state law:

Personal jurisdiction demands more than corporate formality. Registration and a local agent do not satisfy a long-arm statute’s “transact business” requirement when the plaintiff fails to link the relevant injurious conduct to forum activities.
Plaintiffs in multi-defendant product liability suits must identify each defendant’s role, especially when alleging a concerted course of conduct. Group pleading will not clear the plausibility bar.

Future litigants will need to carry their burden of establishing specific facts—rather than conclusory assertions—for both jurisdictional and substantive elements at the pleading stage.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Long-Arm Jurisdiction: A state law allowing its courts to reach nonresident defendants based on certain in-state activities. Kentucky requires that the lawsuit “arise from” the defendant’s business transactions in the state.
Federal Due Process: Even if state law authorizes jurisdiction, the court must ensure that exercising authority over the defendant does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of fair notice and substantial justice.
Plausibility Standard (Iqbal/Twombly): A complaint must contain more than labels or legal conclusions. It must include factual allegations that permit a “reasonable inference” of liability.
Concert of Action Theory: In Kentucky product liability, multiple parties can be held jointly liable if they acted in cooperation or agreement in bringing a defective product to market.
Futility of Amendment: Courts need not allow an amendment if the proposed new facts still fail to state a viable legal claim under controlling standards.

Conclusion

Cordle v. Enovis Corp. establishes a clear reminder that:

Pleading personal jurisdiction requires a concrete nexus between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s cause of action.
Group allegations are insufficient; product-liability plaintiffs must spell out each defendant’s role in design, manufacturing, or distribution to meet the plausibility threshold.
Repeated notice of defects in a complaint, unaddressed by the plaintiff, justifies denial of further amendment as futile.

By affirming these stringent—but fundamental—pleading and jurisdictional requirements, the Sixth Circuit underscores the importance of precise factual development before subject-matter and personal-jurisdiction issues can be litigated in multi-entity product liability actions.