Al Haj v. Pfizer Inc.
338 F. Supp. 3d 815
E.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff Al Haj (on behalf of himself and a putative nationwide class) alleges Pfizer mislabels Robitussin products, charging more for "Maximum Strength" despite lower active-ingredient concentration than "Regular Strength."
- This is a diversity action in federal court; Pfizer previously moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6)/12(f). The court dismissed one co-plaintiff for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied dismissal/striking of Al Haj's claims and the nationwide class.
- Pfizer renewed a motion to strike the nationwide class under Bristol-Myers, arguing that absent class members require specific jurisdictional nexus to Illinois.
- Courts are split: some apply Bristol-Myers to require jurisdictional analysis for each absent class member; others reject that extension.
- The court reasons Bristol-Myers was a mass-action decision (not a class action) and did not address absent class members, and that pre-Bristol-Myers precedent treated absent class members differently across doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bristol-Myers requires specific jurisdiction as to each absent class member before they may be included in a federal class action | Al Haj implicitly argues nationwide class permissible without showing specific jurisdiction for each absent member; class representation suffices | Pfizer argues Bristol-Myers requires courts to assess personal jurisdiction over defendant with respect to each absent class member's claim if defendant lacks general jurisdiction | Denied: Bristol-Myers does not extend to absent class members in class actions; court may hear nationwide class claims without individualized jurisdictional showings for each absent member |
| Whether absent class members are "parties" for personal jurisdiction purposes | Absent members should not be treated as parties for jurisdictional limits; named plaintiff's contacts control | Pfizer contends absent members are parties for personal jurisdiction because due-process limits apply | Held: Absent class members are not parties for personal-jurisdiction analysis; context-specific party status excludes them here |
| Whether treating absent members as non-parties conflicts with Rules Enabling Act | Class treatment does not alter substantive rights; REA does not bar treating absent members as non-parties for jurisdictional purposes | Pfizer claims REA compels extension of Bristol-Myers to class actions | Held: No REA violation; defendants have no substantive right to exclude absent members on personal-jurisdiction grounds |
| Practical/administrative feasibility of requiring individualized jurisdictional inquiries | Class litigation efficiency favors relying on named plaintiff's contacts and not litigating thousands of jurisdictional showings | Pfizer warns of due-process limits and territorial sovereignty concerns | Held: Requiring individualized inquiries would severely undermine Rule 23 economies and is impractical; court rejects that approach |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (holding specific jurisdiction requires nexus between forum and each plaintiff's claim in mass-action context)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (explaining absent class members may be parties for some purposes and not others)
- Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (class-filed claims toll statutes of limitations for absent members)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (absent class members bound by judgments and settlements upon class certification)
- Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (subject-matter jurisdiction as a restriction on federal power)