Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 169: Listen and Learn -- Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro)
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Personal Jurisdiction Part 2: The Ford Cases [More With McGlinchey Ep. 8]
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a consumer class action against Ledger SAS’s e-commerce vendor Shopify Inc. because of its locale – Shopify is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. Judge...more
We recently discussed Circuit Court rulings allowing nationwide class actions where the named plaintiffs could satisfy specific personal jurisdiction. Since then, the Fifth Circuit has held that a defendant did not waive its...more
Takeaway: We previously wrote that a number of district courts had split on whether to apply the Supreme Court’s personal jurisdictional holding in Bristol-Myers to class actions. We anticipated that this issue would...more
In 2017, the Supreme Court held in the context of a coordinated mass action that a California State Court did not have jurisdiction over claims asserted against the defendant by plaintiffs who were not residents of the state....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
A Minnesota federal district court recently denied FLSA conditional certification over the claims of workers who were not assigned to a Minnesota project at issue or not Minnesota residents due to specific jurisdiction...more
On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction a putative class action against a chemical products manufacturer (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and...more
The Situation: A federal court in California recently considered whether it had jurisdiction over defendants in a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") based on the presence in California of the...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
We are pleased to present the latest edition of our Monthly TCPA Digest, providing insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This month’s issue examines a recent Illinois federal court ruling...more
The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), remain unsettled. ...more
It is no secret that there are certain jurisdictions that plaintiffs’ class action attorneys prefer to file suit, most notably, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami and New York, to name a few. While plaintiffs’ lawyers may have...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
The Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), is my pick for “2017 Class Action Practitioners’ Case of the Year”––and it’s not even a class case....more
I. TWO SCOTUS DECISIONS THAT MATTERED - A. Litigation Tourism, Type 1: Bristol-Myers Squibb. - If you are sued by a “litigation tourist” in a class or mass action and suit is not brought in your home state, you now...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
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
Product manufacturers routinely hauled into court in far away, inconvenient jurisdictions can breathe a little easier with the Supreme Court’s decision this week in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California. ...more
In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, No. 16-466, slip op. (U.S., June 19, 2017), the United States Supreme Court provided further clarification regarding the exercise of personal jurisdiction over...more
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued the latest in a line of decisions that began in 2011 which has restricted the exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants by state and federal courts....more