We thought you might be interested in today's U.S. Supreme Court decision Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California.
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a California Supreme Court decision that had applied a "sliding scale approach" to specific jurisdiction, and held that California courts did not have specific jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident users of the blood thinner Plavix. The California Supreme Court held that there was specific jurisdiction for the claims against drug-manufacturer Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. because (1) the non-residents' claims were similar to the claims of California residents who had purchased and consumed the drug in-state; and (2) Bristol-Myers Squibb had research facilities in California, although no testing of Plavix occurred there.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8:1 opinion authored by Justice Alito, rejected the California court's reasoning, and reaffirmed what it called the "settled principles" of specific jurisdiction. The Court rejected the notion that relationships between a defendant and third parties, like those between Bristol-Myers Squibb and the California plaintiffs or California distributors of the drug, or even "wide-ranging contacts" with a state, could create specific jurisdiction. The Court instead reiterated that the primary concern in assessing personal jurisdiction is "the burden on the defendant," and it held that specific jurisdiction requires the suit to arise out of or relate "to the defendant's contacts with the forum."
The Court commented that non-California plaintiffs still could bring their claims in states having general jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers Squibb or, potentially, in their home states where specific jurisdiction may still be available. The Court also noted that its decision is applicable to state courts, and left open the question whether the same restrictions apply in federal courts. A dissenting opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor posits a substantial negative impact on the ability of plaintiffs to join claims together for mass tort treatment in state courts against large corporations with nationwide business dealings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.