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, or BMS, the court clarified the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in the context of a mass tort action brought in California state court. Since that decision, some defendants have attempted to use BMS as a sword in response to putative nationwide class actions, with varying levels of success. No circuit court has yet to weigh in on the question of whether BMS applies in the class action context. But even if courts begin to consistently dismiss putative nationwide classes on BMS grounds, filing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may not always be the best strategic and business decision for defendants.

The Supreme Court’s BMS Decision: Specific Jurisdiction Requires a Connection Between the Forum and the Specific Claims -

The Trial Court’s Decision -

In BMS, nearly 700 plaintiffs from 34 states filed a mass tort action against BristolMyers Squibb in California state court, asserting a variety of state-law claims based on injuries they allegedly suffered as a result of the sale of the drug Plavix. Because Bristol-Myers Squibb is based outside California, it moved to quash service of summons as to the non-California plaintiffs’ claims based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court disagreed, finding that the court had general jurisdiction over BristolMyers Squibb based on the company’s “extensive activities in California.” Bristol-Myers Squibb appealed.

Originally published in Law 360 on April 25, 2018.