State A's statute provides that a company registered to do business must authorize the Secretary of State to receive service of process on its behalf. The statute is silent on whether the Secretary must provide notice to the company that it has been served. A teacher sues the toy manufacturer in State A state court for products liability, serving process on the Secretary of State. The toy manufacturer moves to dismiss. What is the strongest argument for dismissal?

State A's statute provides that a company registered to do business must authorize the Secretary of State to receive service of process on its behalf. The statute is silent on whether the Secretary must provide notice to the company that it has been served. A teacher sues the toy manufacturer in State A state court for products liability, serving process on the Secretary of State. The toy manufacturer moves to dismiss. What is the strongest argument for dismissal?

• A. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is below the threshold.
• B. Service requirements are unconstitutional because they failed to provide adequate notice.
• C. Personal jurisdiction lacking because the toy manufacturer has no minimum contacts with State A.
• D. The teacher failed to state a claim because the toy manufacturer's products were safe.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that a plaintiff must plead a legally valid claim, and a dismissal can be proper at the pleadings stage if the complaint itself shows no basis for liability. For products liability, a plaintiff must allege that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. If the facts alleged show that the toy manufacturer’s products were safe, there is no defect to support a products-liability claim. In that situation, even though service on the Secretary of State may be procedurally proper and the court would have jurisdiction, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. That makes dismissal under the rules governing failure to state a claim the strongest argument. Service on the Secretary of State is a recognized method for corporations doing business in State A, and the statute’s silence on notice to the company about service does not by itself create a due-process problem that would require dismissal at the pleadings stage. Likewise, subject-matter jurisdiction generally isn’t defeated by the amount in controversy in State A’s courts, and personal jurisdiction typically follows from the corporation’s registration to do business in the state or from proper service, not from the merits of the claim.

The key idea is that a plaintiff must plead a legally valid claim, and a dismissal can be proper at the pleadings stage if the complaint itself shows no basis for liability. For products liability, a plaintiff must allege that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. If the facts alleged show that the toy manufacturer’s products were safe, there is no defect to support a products-liability claim. In that situation, even though service on the Secretary of State may be procedurally proper and the court would have jurisdiction, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. That makes dismissal under the rules governing failure to state a claim the strongest argument.

Service on the Secretary of State is a recognized method for corporations doing business in State A, and the statute’s silence on notice to the company about service does not by itself create a due-process problem that would require dismissal at the pleadings stage. Likewise, subject-matter jurisdiction generally isn’t defeated by the amount in controversy in State A’s courts, and personal jurisdiction typically follows from the corporation’s registration to do business in the state or from proper service, not from the merits of the claim.