Defendants are numerous manufacturers of cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. The state of Washington sued the defendants for price-fixing; the defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that there was no personal jurisdiction simply because their CRT monitors arrived at Washington through the stream of commerce.
The court found that some jurisdictional discovery was warranted, and affirmed the lower court opinions denying the motion to dismiss.
The divided Washington Supreme Court essentially ignored the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Nicastro, which held that the stream of commerce theory was invalid. It would not be surprising to see this case before the Supreme Court.