BCBSM, INC. v. CELGENE CORPORATION
2:21-cv-06668
D.N.J.Mar 22, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (BCBSM, HCSC, Molina, Florida Blue) are insurers who sued Celgene and Bristol‑Myers Squibb in Dakota County, MN, alleging anticompetitive conduct to block generics for Thalomid and Revlimid (REMS manipulation, obstructing samples, baseless FDA citizen petitions, fraudulent patents, sham litigation, and pay‑for‑delay settlements).
- Plaintiffs sought state‑law damages for paying supracompetitive prices; Celgene removed to federal court.
- Celgene moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (or alternatively to transfer to D.N.J.) and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs moved to remand for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- The Court found the personal jurisdiction question over Molina (a Delaware citizen) was straightforward and addressed it first, dismissing Molina’s claims for lack of specific personal jurisdiction because Molina had no alleged contacts with Minnesota.
- With Molina dismissed, complete diversity existed and the Court denied remand.
- The Court transferred the remaining claims to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding judicial economy (multiple related Celgene matters in New Jersey) heavily favored transfer; the 12(b)(6) motion was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction / Remand | Plaintiffs: federal court lacks jurisdiction; case should be remanded to state court. | Celgene: diversity (after excluding Molina) and/or federal‑question jurisdiction (Gunn) support removal. | Denied remand; after dismissing Molina for lack of personal jurisdiction, complete diversity existed and federal diversity jurisdiction applied. |
| Personal jurisdiction over Molina | Plaintiffs: general allegations and insurer status establish MN contacts. | Celgene: Molina has no Minnesota contacts; MN lacks specific jurisdiction over Molina. | Granted dismissal of Molina’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction (no MN contacts, no forum‑related conduct). |
| Personal jurisdiction over non‑Molina plaintiffs | Plaintiffs: Minnesota contacts via Prime Therapeutics, REMS pharmacies, and Celgene sales activity support jurisdiction. | Celgene: key conduct and witnesses are outside MN; jurisdiction is weak and transfer preferable. | Court did not fully decide MN jurisdiction for remaining plaintiffs because transfer was appropriate; noted some MN contacts but favored transfer. |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Plaintiffs: MN forum choice should be respected; inconvenience to plaintiffs if transferred. | Celgene: judicial economy and numerous related actions/patent litigation in D.N.J. make transfer appropriate. | Transfer granted to District of New Jersey based mainly on judicial economy and consolidation of related litigation; convenience factors did not overcome that. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (district court may decide personal jurisdiction before subject‑matter jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (specific jurisdiction requires claim‑by‑claim nexus between forum and defendant’s conduct)
- Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL‑585, 364 U.S. 19 (§ 1404(a) avoids duplicative litigation and conserves judicial resources)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (court may transfer a case under § 1404(a) even if it lacks personal jurisdiction)
- Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Mississippi Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688 (factors and framework for § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
- In re AFY, 734 F.3d 810 (court may decide threshold jurisdictional issues in any order)
- Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Techs. Corp., 760 F.3d 816 (plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction at pleading stage)
- Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM‑Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589 (distinguishing specific and general personal jurisdiction and outlining contacts analysis)