U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Key Personal Jurisdictional Issue Relevant to Class Action Litigation

by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

A path to the Golden State will likely be closed in the coming months for class action plaintiffs. On January 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 377 P. 3d 874 (Cal. 2016), an August 2016 decision by the California Supreme Court. The question presented is whether out of state plaintiffs’ claims arise out of or relate to a defendant’s forum activities – sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction – when there is no causal link between those forum contacts and the claims. The case is expected to be set for argument and decided this term.

The jurisdictional landscape saw a seismic shift in 2014 as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), which strictly limited the extent to which courts can exercise general jurisdiction in nationwide class actions over non-resident corporate defendants. At virtually the same time, the Supreme Court also re-affirmed that an assessment of specific jurisdiction must focus on a defendant’s “suit-related conduct” and not on plaintiffs’ relationship with the subject forum. Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014). As explained and discussed in our recent post, Allen Garrett, Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Class Members: An overlooked defense in nationwide class actions? Jan. 3, 2017, in tandem these decisions should be applied to reduce the size and exposure of class claims by challenging and in many instances eliminating non-resident class members from a putative class action against a non-resident defendant.

The Walden court did not define what is meant by “suit-related conduct.” Nor is there prior Supreme Court precedent controlling that determination. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 n. 10 (1984) (declining to decide “what sort of tie between a cause of action and a defendant’s contacts with the forum is necessary to a determination that either connection exists.”). As a result, a split emerged among the courts, both federal and state. The vast majority (nine circuits along with the highest courts of Arizona, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington) have ruled that a plaintiff’s case does not “relate to or arise out of” a defendant’s forum contacts unless those contacts caused the injury alleged in some manner. Some of these courts express the relatedness requirement in “but for” terms, while others reference “proximate cause” or “foreseeability.” But in all instances there must be a discernable connection. By contrast, however, the Federal Circuit and the highest courts of California, the District of Columbia, and Texas have followed a different route. Among them there is no uniform standard, but the underlying concept in their analyses is that there should be some sort of material or tangible relationship. See, e.g., Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F. 3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Avenues to establish specific jurisdiction in these courts are flexible and difficult to predict as a result.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers illustrates the point to perfection. Nearly 600 non-California residents joined 86 in-state parties to sue Bristol-Myers, a global biopharma enterprise incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, along with California-based McKesson Corporation, for claims related to the drug Plavix (developed, marketed and sold by Bristol-Myers and distributed in California by McKesson). None of the non-residents’ claims, however, were connected to Bristol-Myers’ activities in California. Plavix was not prescribed or provided to them in the state. None was injured or received treatment in the state. Bristol Myers did not develop Plavix at a California laboratory. And none of the company’s other activities relative to the drug, such as packaging, marketing, or compliance with regulatory requirements, took place in the state. Simply put, the non-residents’ claims would be exactly the same if Bristol-Myers had no forum contacts whatsoever.

Bristol-Myers moved to quash service and obtain dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the request based on its assessment that the company was subject to general jurisdiction in the state. Denying Bristol-Myers’ request for a writ of mandate, the California Court of Appeal disagreed as to general jurisdiction, but held that there was sufficient relationship between the claims and the company’s California activities to establish specific jurisdiction. On review, the California Supreme Court agreed by a narrow 4 to 3 margin.

All of the California Supreme Court justices agreed that general jurisdiction was not available pursuant to Daimler and related decisions: “Although the company’s ongoing activities in California are substantial, they fall far short of establishing that it is at home in this state ….” Yet pursuant to a “sliding scale” standard of “relatedness” first articulated in Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 926 P. 2d 1085 (Cal. 1996), the majority held that specific jurisdiction could be established. 377 P.3d at 806, 816. Under the “sliding scale” test, the intensity of a defendant’s forum contacts and the connection between those contacts and a plaintiff’s claims are inversely related. In other words, the more extensive the defendant’s forum contacts, the easier it is to show a connection with the claim. Additionally, forum contacts do not need to be either a “but for” or even “proximate cause” of the injuries alleged. Within this framework, four jurists held that Bristol-Myers’ California activities were sufficiently extensive, ruling that because the company’s national marketing and related efforts relative to Plavix included the state, because the claims of residents and non-residents were similar, and because the company conducted research in the state (even though no such effort involved Plavix), specific jurisdiction was shown. The majority thus appears to have applied a pre-Daimler approach to general jurisdiction to the issue of specific jurisdiction.

The dissent did not hesitate to point out that the majority had “undermine[d] an essential distinction between specific and general jurisdiction.” Id. at 896. “By weakening the relatedness requirement, the majority’s decision threatens to subject companies to the jurisdiction of California courts to an extent unpredictable from their business activities in California, extending jurisdiction over claims of liability well beyond our state’s legitimate regulatory interest.” Id. And even more directly, “…the majority creates the equivalent of general jurisdiction in California courts. What the federal high court wrought in Daimler …[the majority] undoes … under the rubric of specific jurisdiction.” Id.

The California decision in Bristol-Myers is probably an extreme example of what can happen when the “relatedness” concept underlying specific jurisdiction is divorced from any causation requirement. Had the case been adjudicated by any of the courts which gauge relatedness in terms of causation, the result would have been different. Ironically, that would even be true in federal court in California. The Ninth Circuit requires “but for” causation for specific jurisdiction. Menken v. Emm, 503 F. 3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). Had plaintiffs’ counsel in Bristol-Myers not named McKesson and thereby destroyed diversity, following removal to federal district court none of the non-residents could have proceeded with their claims in California.

Takeaway: While predicting the result of any appeal is an uncertain exercise, odds are that the Supreme Court will use Bristol-Myers as a vehicle to complete the fundamental restructuring of jurisdiction it initiated in Daimler. And if, as it appears, that will entail limiting “relatedness” for purposes of specific jurisdiction to a requirement of causation, defendants should face fewer instances of forum shopping in the future class actions.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.