Nevada Reaffirms Pure Stream-of-Commerce Jurisdiction: Isolated Product Arrival and Unconnected Tradeshow Contacts Are Insufficient

1. Introduction

This decision clarifies the evidence necessary to subject an out-of-state product distributor to specific personal jurisdiction in Nevada. The Supreme Court of Nevada reaffirmed that Nevada follows the pure stream-of-commerce test, rather than the more demanding stream-of-commerce-plus approach. Nevertheless, authorizing nationwide distribution and showing that one product reached Nevada do not, without more, establish the regular and anticipated flow of products that this jurisdictional theory requires.

The court also distinguished a company’s purposeful participation in a Nevada tradeshow from the separate requirement that the plaintiff’s claims arise from or relate to that participation. Commercial attendance at a Las Vegas tradeshow can support jurisdiction over a sufficiently connected dispute. It does not automatically make Nevada a permissible forum for every later product claim involving a business relationship discussed there.

Parties and factual background

Essence USA, Inc., based in New Jersey, represents Israeli manufacturer Essence SmartCare Ltd. and facilitates wholesale distribution of SmartCare products in the United States and Canada. Essence USA does not sell directly to consumers. One of its customers, Pennsylvania-based Medical Guardian, LLC, resells SmartCare products to end users.

According to the complaint, Virginia Rose Pass and her children selected and purchased a Care@Home C7000 medical alert system from Medical Guardian in 2020. Pass allegedly fell at her Nevada home in 2021, but the device failed to alert emergency services. Her daughter found her approximately 36 hours later, and Pass died one week later from injuries sustained in the fall.

Pass’s estate and six children, collectively called “Morgan” in the opinion, sued Essence USA and Medical Guardian for negligence, products liability, breach of express and implied warranties, and wrongful death. SmartCare was not named as a defendant. The record did not establish who purchased Pass’s device, where or how it was purchased, or how it reached her Nevada home.

Procedural background

Essence USA challenged personal jurisdiction and submitted an affidavit denying Nevada offices, employees, bank accounts, registration, and relevant product-distribution activities. After dismissal and reconsideration proceedings, the district court permitted limited jurisdictional discovery. Morgan obtained executive testimony and distribution agreements but still failed to establish a sufficient jurisdictional connection.

The district court certified the dismissal of Essence USA as final under NRCP 54(b), allowing an immediate appeal while claims against Medical Guardian continued. The Supreme Court affirmed. The appeal concerned Nevada’s authority to adjudicate claims against Essence USA, not whether the device was defective or whether either defendant was liable for Pass’s death.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The court rejected two proposed grounds for specific jurisdiction:

1. Distribution through interstate commerce: Morgan showed only one Essence USA product reaching a Nevada end user. Nationwide resale authorization did not establish a regular and anticipated flow into Nevada.
2. Attendance at the Consumer Electronic Show (CES): Essence USA’s business activities at the Las Vegas tradeshow did not have a sufficiently established relationship to Morgan’s claims. The suggested connection between CES discussions, a 2020 pricing agreement, and Pass’s device rested on speculation.

The governing stream-of-commerce rule requires proof that the defendant:

1. introduced products into the stream of commerce;
2. expected those products to reach Nevada; and
3. thereby generated a regular flow of commerce into the state.

The distribution agreement satisfied the first requirement and arguably the second. The third was unsupported. Separately, Morgan failed to establish that her claims arose from or related to Essence USA’s Nevada tradeshow contacts. Because these threshold requirements were not met, the court did not decide whether exercising jurisdiction would otherwise be reasonable.

3. Analysis: Evidentiary Burdens and the Jurisdictional Framework

A. The plaintiff must establish jurisdiction with competent evidence

The court’s reasoning begins with the allocation of responsibility: the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction, and that burden never shifts to the defendant.

Dogra v. Liles, 129 Nev. 932, 314 P.3d 952 (2013), supplies the appellate review framework. The Supreme Court reviews jurisdictional legal conclusions independently, while reviewing factual findings for clear error.

Abbott-Interfast Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 871, 821 P.2d 1043 (1991), establishes that, absent a full evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing through allegations and, when challenged, competent evidence. Trump v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 109 Nev. 687, 857 P.2d 740 (1993), reinforces both the plaintiff’s continuing burden and the distinction between that preliminary showing and the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable after a full evidentiary hearing.

The opinion carefully distinguishes three categories:

• Uncontroverted factual allegations: These are accepted as true.
• Contested jurisdictional allegations: These require evidentiary support; the plaintiff cannot simply repeat the complaint.
• Reasonable inferences: These may favor the plaintiff, but they must arise from evidence rather than conjecture.

TikTok, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 51, 578 P.3d 640 (2025), supports accepting uncontroverted allegations and drawing reasonable plaintiff-favorable inferences. Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977), explains why allegations contradicted by affidavit cannot simply be assumed true. In re Terrorist Attacks on Sep. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2013), supplies the corresponding limit: courts need not accept argumentative inferences or legal conclusions presented as factual allegations.

These authorities were decisive because Morgan’s theory depended on filling evidentiary gaps. The absence of proof contradicting her proposed explanation did not itself prove that explanation. Even under the plaintiff-favorable preliminary standard, she needed evidence connecting the relevant events.

B. Limited discovery did not produce a new evidentiary standard

In a footnote, the court acknowledged Schneider v. Hardesty, 669 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2012), which discusses a more nuanced approach when jurisdiction is decided after discovery but without a full evidentiary hearing. In some circumstances, other courts apply a preponderance standard where the facts are undisputed and the plaintiff received all requested discovery.

The Nevada court did not adopt that approach here. Neither party requested the higher standard, and Morgan failed even under the less demanding prima facie framework. The footnote therefore identifies an unresolved procedural question rather than announcing a new Nevada rule.

C. Nevada’s long-arm statute reaches the federal constitutional limit

Under Baker v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 527, 999 P.2d 1020 (2000), NRS 14.065 extends jurisdiction as far as federal due process permits. Statutory authorization and constitutional permissibility therefore merge into a single inquiry.

The foundational minimum-contacts principle comes from Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), as incorporated through Mizner v. Mizner, 84 Nev. 268, 439 P.2d 678 (1968), and Baker v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.: jurisdiction must comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

General jurisdiction was conceded to be unavailable. The governing specific-jurisdiction framework, drawn from Cath. Diocese, Green Bay, Inc. v. John Doe 119, 131 Nev. 246, 349 P.3d 518 (2015), requires purposeful availment, claim-relatedness, and reasonableness.

Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984), quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977), directs attention to the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. This explains why neither an injury occurring in Nevada nor unrelated business activity there is independently conclusive.

4. Analysis: Nevada’s Stream-of-Commerce Rule

A. Foreseeable product movement is not enough

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980), provides the starting point. A business may become subject to jurisdiction when it places products into commerce expecting purchases by consumers in the forum. But the relevant foreseeability concerns whether the defendant should reasonably anticipate being sued there, not merely whether a movable product might eventually arrive there.

This distinction protects predictability. A customer’s unilateral decision to transport a product into Nevada does not necessarily establish that the distributor cultivated a Nevada market. The missing evidence about Pass’s purchase mattered because it prevented the court from distinguishing an anticipated commercial flow from a fortuitous arrival.

B. The unresolved federal split

Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102 (1987), produced competing approaches:

• Pure stream of commerce: Justice Brennan’s concurrence treated a regular and anticipated flow into the forum, with the relevant expectation, as sufficient without additional forum-targeting conduct.
• Stream of commerce plus: The competing plurality required something beyond placement into commerce, such as advertising, product servicing, or other conduct indicating an intent to serve that particular state.

In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prod. Liab. Litig., 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014), is cited to identify the latter approach as “stream-of-commerce-plus.” It supplies useful terminology rather than the controlling rule for Nevada.

J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), again failed to produce a majority rationale. Its plurality favored a sovereign-by-sovereign inquiry into whether the defendant targeted the particular forum, rather than merely the national market. Justice Breyer’s narrower concurrence, however, resolved the case on the insufficiency of the isolated sale shown by the record without adopting that broader doctrinal change.

The opinion illustrates the continuing split through several authorities:

• J.S.T. Corp. v. Foxconn Interconnect Tech. Ltd., 965 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2020), retains the pure approach because the Supreme Court has not overruled it through controlling guidance.
• Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., 62 F.4th 496 (9th Cir. 2023), reflects the Ninth Circuit’s preference for stream-of-commerce-plus.
• BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG v. Shaik, 716 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2025), is cited through Justice Busby’s concurrence to illustrate that federal and state courts within the same state can follow different approaches.

These authorities explain why Nevada needed to state its own position expressly. The court reaffirmed its existing pure-stream approach rather than adopting the Ninth Circuit’s preferred formulation.

C. The narrow lesson of Nicastro

The court relied on Justice Breyer’s concurrence for a proposition common to both approaches: an isolated sale does not establish the regular, anticipated commercial flow required for stream-of-commerce jurisdiction.

Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977), supplies the rule for identifying the holding of a fragmented Supreme Court decision through the narrowest rationale supporting the judgment. The quoted formulation derives from Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). Here, those authorities concern interpretation of divided precedent, not the substantive subject matter of the underlying cases.

Brothers & Sisters in Christ, LLC v. Zazzle, Inc., 42 F.4th 948 (8th Cir. 2022), supports the isolated-sale limitation. McDonough v. Cycling Sports Grp., Inc., 392 F. Supp. 3d 320 (W.D.N.Y. 2019), likewise treats Justice Breyer’s concurrence as the narrow controlling opinion, making no substantive alteration to earlier Supreme Court doctrine.

The Nevada court therefore did not need to resolve the broader federal dispute to reject Morgan’s evidence. Even the more permissive test required a regular flow that the record did not demonstrate.

D. Nevada precedent remains intact, but must be read with its limits

The opinion situates its holding within four important Nevada decisions:

Metal-Matic, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 82 Nev. 263, 415 P.2d 617 (1966)

This early decision recognized jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer whose product was reasonably expected to enter interstate commerce and allegedly caused injury in Nevada. It establishes the historical foundation for Nevada’s distribution-based approach.

Abbott-Interfast Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

Beyond its evidentiary rule, this case involved active marketing to an intermediary with knowledge that many fasteners would enter chairs destined for Nevada. Its recurring, known destination materially differs from the single unexplained arrival established here.

Judas Priest v. Second Judicial District Court, 104 Nev. 424, 760 P.2d 137 (1988)

This decision states that a product creator may be subject to jurisdiction where it knowingly uses a national distribution system to make sales. Morgan confirms that this language must be read alongside federal requirements governing the regularity and anticipated destination of the product flow. National distribution is not an automatic substitute for evidence of Nevada-directed commercial movement.

Franceschi v. LG Chem, Ltd., 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 65, 580 P.3d 1279 (2025)

This recent decision applied the pure-stream approach to a battery company’s use of national distribution networks. Morgan reaffirms that doctrinal choice while emphasizing the need for supporting facts. The court also invokes Franceschi’s warning that a disconnect between forum contacts and the alleged harm defeats relatedness.

E. Application to Essence USA

The 2014 distribution agreement authorized Medical Guardian to resell SmartCare products throughout the United States and Canada, but did not mention the Care@Home device. A 2020 pricing agreement addressed the Care@Home C7000 line. These documents established a distribution relationship, not a regular Nevada stream.

At oral argument, Morgan conceded that Medical Guardian was the only authorized reseller of the relevant line in the United States and Canada and that the record identified no other Care@Home device reaching a Nevada consumer. The court was not finding that no other devices actually existed in Nevada; it was holding that Morgan had not proved their presence or a regular commercial flow.

Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021), reinforces that purposeful contacts must be the defendant’s own choice rather than random, isolated, or fortuitous occurrences. Without purchase details or evidence of additional Nevada distribution, Morgan could not show that Pass’s device represented anything more than such an occurrence. The court also cited Wright and Miller’s Federal Practice & Procedure to emphasize the importance of developing a concrete factual record after Nicastro.

5. Analysis: Tradeshow Contacts and Claim-Relatedness

A. Nevada tradeshow activity can support jurisdiction

Morgan’s alternative argument rested on Essence USA’s repeated participation in CES. Its personnel promoted products, met prospective resellers, and maintained existing business relationships. Its president had met Medical Guardian at CES approximately five times, including in 2020.

Firouzabadi v. First Judicial District Court, 110 Nev. 1348, 885 P.2d 616 (1994), establishes that tradeshow participation can create purposeful Nevada contacts. There, a New Jersey apparel vendor negotiated and entered agreements with a California retailer at a Las Vegas tradeshow. The resulting contract and misrepresentation claims arose directly from those agreements.

The vendor had deliberately entered Nevada to solicit business; the lawsuit concerned that very business; and Nevada had an interest in addressing commercial misconduct originating within its borders. Prescott v. Slide Fire Sols., LP, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (D. Nev. 2018), is cited in support of the purposeful-availment significance of tradeshow marketing.

Morgan does not retreat from those principles. Instead, it holds that purposeful contact alone is insufficient. The claims must also have the required connection to that contact.

B. Relatedness does not require strict causation

In re Richard H. Goldstein Irrevocable Tr., 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 41, 575 P.3d 72 (2025), restates the requirement that claims arise from or relate to the defendant’s purposeful forum contacts.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., S.F. Cnty., 582 U.S. 255 (2017), explains its limiting function: there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy. Extensive activities unrelated to the particular claims cannot replace that affiliation.

Crucially, Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. rejects an invariably strict but-for causation requirement. Ford’s extensive promotion, sales, and servicing in the relevant states supported jurisdiction over local accidents even though the particular vehicles had originally been sold elsewhere. “Relate to” therefore reaches some relationships that are not directly causal.

Morgan expressly recognizes that broader standard. Its result should not be read as requiring every plaintiff to trace the exact item’s original sale to Nevada or prove that an in-state meeting caused the injury. Rather, neither direct causation nor an adequately supported noncausal relationship was established on this record.

C. The proposed CES connection was speculative

Morgan argued that the 2020 CES meetings produced the pricing agreement that enabled Medical Guardian to sell the Care@Home device. The evidence supported a possible connection between discussions and subsequent commercial arrangements, but not the decisive inference that Medical Guardian lacked authority to sell the device without those discussions.

The record did not establish where the pricing agreement was negotiated or concluded, whether an earlier agreement already authorized sales, or how the arrangement connected to Pass’s purchase. The original reseller relationship had begun in Philadelphia in 2014, before SmartCare began exhibiting at CES.

Moreover, CES was a business-to-business event closed to the public. There was no evidence that Pass or her family interacted with Essence USA there. Unlike Firouzabadi v. First Judicial District Court, the litigation did not concern a transaction shown to have been negotiated and concluded at the Nevada event.

The absence of direct interaction was part of the evidentiary picture, not a universal requirement for products jurisdiction. What mattered was the overall failure to connect the Nevada activity to the product controversy.

D. Warranties and royalties did not fill the gap

Morgan also relied on a limited warranty suggesting potential services for nationwide customers. Essence USA’s supplemental declaration stated that it had never served Nevada consumers under that warranty. The warranty’s existence did not demonstrate actual Nevada services or a market presence comparable to Ford’s dealerships and servicing network.

The court contrasted the record with TikTok, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., where substantial direct interaction with Nevada users supported a relationship to the State’s consumer-protection claims. These comparisons illustrate meaningful forum connections; they do not establish a universal requirement for extensive direct-to-consumer operations.

Monthly royalties likewise failed to establish that Essence USA knew its devices were operating in Nevada. Nothing showed state-specific accounting or other notice of Nevada use. Morgan also raised the royalty argument only in her reply brief. Weaver v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 121 Nev. 494, 117 P.3d 193 (2005), permits the court to decline issues first raised at that stage.

6. Potential Impact and Limits

A. Greater emphasis on distribution evidence

Future plaintiffs relying on nationwide distribution will need evidence establishing actual, anticipated commercial movement into Nevada. Depending on the case, useful discovery could include shipment records, Nevada sales histories, reseller reporting, customer-location data, recurring orders, and communications showing expected Nevada demand.

The opinion announces no numerical threshold for a “regular flow.” Its narrower conclusion is that the single unexplained arrival demonstrated here was insufficient.

B. National distribution remains a viable jurisdictional theory

The decision is not an adoption of stream-of-commerce-plus. A plaintiff satisfying Nevada’s pure-stream requirements need not additionally prove Nevada-specific advertising or servicing merely because those activities would satisfy the competing test. Equally, selling through an independent intermediary does not categorically insulate a wholesaler from jurisdiction.

C. Tradeshow jurisdiction remains claim-specific

Companies attending Nevada conventions remain potentially answerable for disputes sufficiently connected to transactions or conduct there. But repeated attendance does not convert Nevada into a forum for every later dispute involving their products or customers. The distinction matters particularly where a tradeshow supports a national reseller network but the lawsuit concerns a separate consumer transaction.

D. Alternative theories cannot substitute for each other’s missing elements

Morgan presented distribution and tradeshow attendance as reinforcing grounds. The court nevertheless required evidence supporting the necessary elements: tradeshow activity did not establish a regular Nevada product flow, and a product’s presence in Nevada did not establish its relationship to CES negotiations.

E. The decision has a limited adjudicative scope

The opinion does not determine product defect, negligence, causation, warranty liability, or damages. Nor does it adjudicate Medical Guardian’s jurisdictional position or decide where another action against Essence USA could properly proceed. It resolves only whether this record supported Nevada’s specific jurisdiction over Essence USA.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal jurisdiction

A court’s legal authority over a particular defendant. It is distinct from whether the plaintiff has a valid claim.

General jurisdiction

Authority to hear claims against a defendant even when those claims are unrelated to the forum. The parties agreed it was unavailable here.

Specific jurisdiction

Authority to hear claims sufficiently connected to the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the state.

Purposeful availment

The defendant deliberately engages with the forum’s benefits or market, rather than being connected to it only through chance or another person’s unilateral actions.

Pure stream of commerce

A distribution-based theory requiring products placed into commerce with the expectation of reaching Nevada through a regular flow.

Stream of commerce plus

A competing theory requiring additional conduct directed specifically toward the forum, beyond the product flow itself.

“Arise from or relate to”

The claim must have a meaningful connection to the defendant’s forum contacts. Direct causation can establish that connection, but is not always necessary.

Prima facie showing

A preliminary evidentiary showing sufficient to establish jurisdiction at the relevant procedural stage. It permits favorable reasonable inferences, not unsupported speculation.

NRCP 54(b) certification

A mechanism allowing a qualifying final ruling concerning fewer than all claims or parties to be appealed while the remaining litigation continues.

8. Conclusion

Morgan preserves Nevada’s relatively permissive pure stream-of-commerce doctrine while insisting on its evidentiary limits. Nationwide resale authorization and one unexplained product arrival did not demonstrate a regular, anticipated Nevada flow. Repeated CES participation likewise did not establish jurisdiction without a supported connection to the claims.

The central lesson is that commercial reach, purposeful forum activity, and claim-relatedness are distinct questions. Plaintiffs must establish the necessary links with competent evidence. Because Morgan did not do so, dismissal of Essence USA for lack of personal jurisdiction was affirmed.