Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

Citation. 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiffs sued Defendant in California state court, alleging that the pharmaceutical company’s drug Plavix had damaged their health. The California Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that the California court had no jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue.

Facts.

Plaintiffs, most of whom were not California residents, sued Defendant in California state court, alleging that the pharmaceutical company’s drug Plavix had damaged their health. Defendant was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, and it maintained substantial operations in both New York and New Jersey. Although it engaged in business activities in California and sold Plavix there, Defendant did not develop, create a marketing strategy for, manufacture, label, package, or work on the regulatory approval for Plavix in the State. The nonresident Plaintiffs did not allege that they obtained Plavix from a California source, that they were injured by Plavix in California, or that they were treated for their injuries in California. The California Superior Court denied Defendant‘s motion to quash service of summons on the nonresidents’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Defendant’s extensive activities in the State gave the California courts general jurisdiction. The California Supreme Court ruled that the California court had no jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issue.

Did the state court have jurisdiction over the claims of non-residents?

Held.

No. The court held that for a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue.

Dissent.

Justice Sotomayor

The majority’s holding would make it unnecessarily difficult for individual plaintiffs across different states to aggregate claims against a large corporate defendant that inflicts identical harms nationwide. It is not unfair to subject a national corporation to one single suit for damages that it incurred nationwide.

Discussion.

For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue. It is not sufficient for Defendant to have other contacts with the forum state; the contacts must be related to the claim at issue. If Defendant’s conduct giving rise to the claim and Plaintiff’s injury both occur outside of the state, the court likely cannot assert specific jurisdiction. Furthermore, the fact that the claims and injuries of resident plaintiffs are identical to those of nonresident plaintiffs is immaterial to the question of specific jurisdiction. In this case, the lower courts erred in finding that California state courts have specific jurisdiction over the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims. Although Defendant has many contacts with California, none of those contacts is affiliated with the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims. Defendant did not design, develop, or manufacture Plavix in California, and the nonresident plaintiffs did not buy or take Plavix in California. Thus, both the Defendant conduct giving rise to the claims and the nonresident plaintiffs’ injuries occurred outside of California. There was no affiliation between California and the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, California courts did not have specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded.


Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following