Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction, the lawsuit must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. A defendant's extensive but unrelated contacts with the forum are insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident plaintiffs.
Facts:
- Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), a pharmaceutical company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, manufactured and sold a prescription drug called Plavix nationwide.
- BMS did not develop, create a marketing strategy for, manufacture, label, or package Plavix in California.
- BMS did conduct other business in California, including operating research facilities and employing sales representatives, and it sold nearly 187 million Plavix pills in the state between 2006 and 2012.
- A group of 592 plaintiffs, who are not residents of California, alleged they were injured by Plavix.
- These non-resident plaintiffs did not purchase Plavix in California, were not prescribed the drug by California physicians, did not ingest the drug in California, and were not treated for their alleged injuries in California.
Procedural Posture:
- Over 600 plaintiffs, including 592 non-California residents, filed a civil action against Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in California Superior Court, a state trial court.
- BMS moved to quash service of summons on the non-residents' claims, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding general jurisdiction over BMS.
- After a series of appeals and a remand from the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court) found no general jurisdiction but concluded that specific jurisdiction existed.
- The California Supreme Court (the state's highest court) affirmed, holding that BMS's extensive contacts with California permitted specific jurisdiction over the non-residents' claims based on a 'sliding scale approach'.
- The United States Supreme Court granted BMS's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant for claims brought by non-resident plaintiffs whose alleged injuries do not arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No. The exercise of specific personal jurisdiction by a state court requires an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, meaning the lawsuit must arise from the defendant's contacts with that state. The California Supreme Court’s 'sliding scale approach,' which relaxes the required connection between the claims and the forum if the defendant has extensive unrelated contacts, is rejected as it resembles a 'loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction.' Here, the non-residents' claims have no adequate connection to California; the fact that other plaintiffs suffered similar injuries in California is irrelevant to establishing jurisdiction over the non-residents' distinct claims. What is needed is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue, and that connection is missing.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes. It does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to subject a massive corporation to suit in a state for a nationwide course of conduct that injures both forum residents and nonresidents alike. BMS purposefully availed itself of California's market, and the non-residents' claims relate to the same nationwide marketing and distribution scheme that caused injury to California residents. The majority's rule will make it difficult to aggregate the claims of plaintiffs across the country, resulting in piecemeal litigation and making it harder to hold large corporations accountable for their nationwide conduct. There is nothing unfair about allowing this consolidated action to proceed in a state where BMS has substantial contacts and where identical claims are already being litigated.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the ability of plaintiffs to bring mass tort actions in state courts by tightening the 'arise out of or relate to' requirement for specific jurisdiction. It effectively eliminates the practice of joining large groups of out-of-state plaintiffs in a favorable state forum unless their specific claims have a direct connection to the defendant's activities in that state. The ruling forces plaintiffs to file suit either in the defendant's 'home' states (where general jurisdiction exists) or in the various states where each individual injury occurred, thereby increasing the complexity and cost of multi-state litigation against corporate defendants.
Unlock the full brief for Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court