Mass Torts vs. Class Actions: A Tale of Two Strategies
Tips and Strategies for Successful Mass Tort Management
NGE On Demand: Insurance Issues in Bankruptcy with Jason Frye
IP|Trend: Discovering Source Code
Interpreting Bristol-Myers : Are Unnamed Members of Nationwide Class Actions ‘Parties’? If So, When? In 2017, the Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS), holding that a...more
This week, two federal appellate courts published notable opinions on the intersection between personal jurisdiction jurisprudence and Rule 23 class action procedure. The defendants in both cases face nationwide class...more
For years, the plaintiffs’ bar has crammed thousands of non-forum class members into a single action in order to more easily justify broader discovery requests, and to more quickly aggregate statutory damages. And many...more
In 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided the Bristol-Myers Squibb case, which limited state court jurisdiction. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1777 (2017). In Bristol-Myers, 600...more
As we previously reported, courts continue to sift through the unsettled law left in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California. ...more
A defendant in a talc jury trial intends on appealing a recent verdict reached in a Missouri case involving twenty-two plaintiffs who claimed that the defendant’s talcum powder contained asbestos and that they developed...more
Companies facing mass tort and product liability claims ranging from asbestos to pharmaceuticals have undoubtedly been monitoring developments related to personal jurisdiction in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark...more
Following the Supreme Court’s landmark personal-jurisdiction decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb, federal district courts have continued to disagree about whether to apply the court’s holding to cases involving nationwide class...more
District courts continue to split on whether to apply the Supreme Court’s holding in Bristol-Myers, a case limiting personal jurisdiction over non-resident multistate mass tort claimants, to the class action context. This...more
On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that has the potential to reshape the way class actions are litigated in courts throughout the country. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,...more
In June 2017, we wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) and how it would likely affect attempts by plaintiffs to pursue multi-state or nationwide class...more
• A judge in the Northern District of Illinois held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) is applicable to personal jurisdiction...more
For the past several years the United States Supreme Court has sought to clarify the proper exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over foreign corporate defendants. This issue is particularly applicable in mass tort...more
Since 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to roll back the expansion of personal jurisdiction by lower courts and has set more limitations on where a plaintiff can sue corporate defendants. We have watched this unfold...more
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”). Mass tort defendants...more
For the second time in the last three years, the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the constitutional limits of a court’s ability to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. The 14th Amendment limits the personal jurisdiction...more
In its two recent 8–1 decisions, BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the U.S. Supreme Court doubled down on its 2014 landmark personal jurisdiction ruling in Daimler AG v....more
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process restricts a state court’s power to exercise “general” (i.e. all-purpose) jurisdiction to hear any and all claims against a defendant. General jurisdiction exists only...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, et al., No. 16-466 (U.S. June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the narrow circumstances under which specific jurisdiction will...more
Nation’s highest court reverses California Supreme Court decision that extended the jurisdictional reach of state courts. In the 2016 case Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (Anderson), the California Supreme Court...more
In a decisive 8-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a theory of specific jurisdiction that would allow a state court to assert specific jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs whose claims were not...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently tightened the reins when it comes to state courts’ exercise of case-based, specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state companies. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of...more
This past Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court drastically changed the landscape of mass tort litigation. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the Court found that the State of California did not have...more
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court reinforced its narrow application of specific jurisdiction in mass tort proceedings in an 8-1 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California. In the class action...more
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a closely-watched California Supreme Court ruling on Monday, finding that California state courts did not have specific jurisdiction to hear the claims of nonresident plaintiffs in a class...more