Beard v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation
1:16-cv-21579
S.D. Fla.May 3, 2016Background
- Mothers and their children allege birth defects from mothers' prenatal ingestion of Paxil; action originally filed in the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Plaintiffs named SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline and GlaxoSmithKline LLC; defendants explain corporate conversion and that GSK LLC is a Delaware LLC with HQ in Pennsylvania/North Carolina.
- GSK moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to sever and transfer venue to districts where each mother allegedly was prescribed/ingested Paxil.
- Plaintiffs argued Missouri jurisdiction based on GSK’s registered agent and alleged marketing/sales in Missouri; GSK relied on recent Supreme Court precedent limiting general jurisdiction.
- Court found plaintiffs alleged only nationwide marketing/sales with no connection between Missouri and plaintiffs’ injuries, concluding personal jurisdiction in Missouri was lacking.
- Court severed the consolidated complaint and transferred each mother–child pair to the federal district where the relevant mother allegedly was prescribed/ingested Paxil: Northern District of Florida, Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Florida, and District of North Dakota.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri courts have general personal jurisdiction over GSK | GSK consented by appointing a registered agent in Missouri; that suffices for jurisdiction | Daimler and Goodyear limit general jurisdiction; mere marketing/sales and a registered agent do not make GSK "at home" in Missouri | No general jurisdiction: allegations (marketing/sales) insufficient; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether Missouri has specific personal jurisdiction over GSK | GSK marketed and sold Paxil in St. Louis, creating contacts tied to the harm | Plaintiffs show no nexus between Missouri contacts and plaintiffs’ injuries; specific jurisdiction requires relatedness | No specific jurisdiction: plaintiffs failed to allege any link between Missouri and the plaintiffs’ injuries |
| Whether the case should be dismissed or transferred after jurisdiction found lacking | Plaintiffs prefer transfer (propose Middle District of Florida) if court rejects jurisdiction | Move to sever and transfer each plaintiff’s claims to the district where the prescribing/ingestion allegedly occurred | Court severed claims and transferred each mother–child pair to their respective districts (ND Fla., SD Fla., MD Fla., NDak.) |
| Whether venue in transferee districts would have been proper originally | Plaintiffs did not contest that critical events occurred where mothers were prescribed/ingested Paxil | Defendants argued venue proper in each plaintiffs’ home district and that witnesses/documents are there | Transferee venues would have been proper under §1391(a); transfer under §1404(a) warranted for convenience and interests of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. v. Bassett & Walker Int'l, Inc., 702 F.3d 472 (8th Cir.) (discusses general vs. specific jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir.) (same)
- Pangaea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito LLC, 647 F.3d 741 (8th Cir.) (specific-jurisdiction purposeful availment analysis)
- Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir. 1990) (appointment of registered agent and consent-to-jurisdiction rule discussed)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction; corporation not subject to suit in forum absent being essentially at home)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (continuous activity alone insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (purposeful availment requirement)