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
There are few rights more important to civil defendants—particularly corporate entities—than personal jurisdiction, which restricts “‘judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty,’”...more
Harris Beach attorneys Abbie Eliasberg Fuchs, Bradley M. Wanner and Daniel R. Strecker review and analyze key judicial holdings and legal developments in New York, the federal arena and across the country that have affected...more
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
In 2019, significant developments are expected on issues that have been percolating in the mass tort and class action litigation arena for several years. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on cases relating to...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
While he often kept us guessing about how he might vote in politically significant cases, retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was far more predictable on class action issues over the course of his 30-year tenure on the Supreme...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
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
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
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
On June 19, the United States Supreme reaffirmed some basic principles of personal jurisdiction in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 528 U.S. __ (2017). In a bloody-good 8-1 decision (with only...more
On June 19th, the Supreme Court issued a decision that could have important consequences for multi-state class actions. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, the Court addressed the question whether a California...more
As anticipated, the just-released U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, No. 16-466, 2017 WL 2621322 (U.S. June 19, 2017), establishes an important limitation in the law of personal...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court placed new limits on where lawsuits may be filed. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16–466 (June 19, 2017), the justices, in an eight – one decision,...more