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]
Courts may only hear and decide cases when they have been granted authority over particular matters and when they have personal jurisdiction over the parties to the matter. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts may...more
Last November, I questioned whether Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., U.S. S. Ct. Case No. No. 21-1168 will wipe out Delaware's hegemony over corporate litigation. In a recent post, Professor Josh Blackman considers...more
In 2021, thanks to the seventh “personal jurisdiction” opinion decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in just over a decade, as well as some state-based legal developments, we now have firm guidelines about where all types of...more
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist., No. 19-368; Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, No. 19-369: In two separate products liability actions, petitioner Ford Motor Company challenged the Montana and Minnesota State courts’...more
With certain jurisdictions within Pennsylvania being considered highly favorable to plaintiffs, claimants and their counsel often go to great lengths to have suit brought in Pennsylvania. Any long-time litigation...more
I. Why It Matters - Until recently, personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants had been expanding significantly in scope through the reliance on tenuous corporate contacts or business conducted by a defendant in a...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
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
In 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s longstanding interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in patent infringement actions against domestic companies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1400; see TC Heartland LLC...more
Personal jurisdiction was not a commonly pursued defense in product liability for a number of years because of the less-than-favorable state of general jurisdiction. ...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
United States Supreme Court Holds Due Process Forbids Exercising Specific Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Nonresident Defendant Where Claims Did Not Arise From Defendant’s Contacts with Forum,...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
Three years after its decision in Walden v. Fiore, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another decision that continues its trend of limiting the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. In...more
In the recent decision, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) v. Superior Court (2017) ___ US ____, the Supreme Court followed a string of recent decisions by further limiting out of state plaintiffs’ access to courts in...more
A recent Supreme Court decision may allow defendants to avoid lawsuits in distant courts that have little or no connection to the lawsuit, especially in cases (such as mass actions) where the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs...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
As its term drew to a close, the Supreme Court handed down its latest decision on personal jurisdiction in a case entitled Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty. Over the last six years, the...more
The Supreme Court has put an end to a jurisdictional contrivance used by the plaintiffs’ bar to shop for a friendly state forum, even if neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant, nor the actionable conduct took place in those...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently reaffirmed the principle that there must be a direct connection between a forum state and the underlying controversy in order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over...more
Several weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., No. 16-466, 581 U.S. —, 2017 WL 2621322 (June 19, 2017) (“Bristol-Myers Squibb”). The more than 600...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