The Seventh Circuit will soon decide the extent to which the Supreme Court’s recent personal jurisdiction decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California applies to class actions.  The Seventh Circuit’s decision could affect whether nationwide class actions can be brought against defendants in states other than their state of incorporation or principal place of business.

• In a putative class action called Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., the Northern District of Illinois held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over statutory claims of non-resident class members because the defendant was not incorporated in (and did not have its principal place of business in) Illinois.
• The district court based its opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, which held that each plaintiff’s claims must arise from or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state for the defendant to be subject to specific jurisdiction there.  In other words, a plaintiff who was not injured in the forum state cannot sue a non-resident defendant there simply by joining her claims with those of other plaintiffs allegedly injured in the forum state.
• The plaintiff in Mussat appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and the case has attracted the attention of amici curiae on both sides.  The case has been fully briefed in the Seventh Circuit and is awaiting decision.
• The D.C. Circuit and Fifth Circuit are presently considering the same issue.  But to date, no federal court of appeals has decided whether Bristol-Myers Squibb applies to absent class members’ claims.  The issue, however, has divided the district courts.  
• We will report on any developments in Mussat or the other appeals in which this issue has been raised.  
• Read the district court’s opinion in Mussat here.