Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco County
206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636
Cal.2016Background
- Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, marketed and sold the drug Plavix nationwide and had substantial operations in California (research labs, ~164 employees, ~250 sales reps, ~$918M Plavix sales in CA 2006–2012).
- Eight coordinated state-court complaints in San Francisco named 678 plaintiffs: 86 California residents and 592 nonresidents, asserting product-liability, fraud, misrepresentation, unfair competition, and related claims arising from Plavix.
- BMS moved to quash service as to the 592 nonresident plaintiffs, arguing California courts lack personal jurisdiction over out-of-state claims that neither arose in nor were connected to California.
- Trial court denied the motion (concluding general jurisdiction). Court of Appeal (after Daimler) held no general jurisdiction but upheld specific jurisdiction over nonresident claims. California Supreme Court granted review.
- The high‑court majority (Cantil‑Sakauye, C.J.) affirmed the Court of Appeal: no general jurisdiction under Daimler’s “at home” rule, but specific jurisdiction exists because BMS purposefully availed itself of California and the nonresident claims are substantially connected to BMS’s California contacts; exercising jurisdiction is reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction: Is BMS "at home" in CA? | Plaintiffs: BMS’s extensive CA operations and sales make CA a forum for all claims. | BMS: Incorporated elsewhere, HQ elsewhere, CA contacts insufficient under Goodyear/Daimler. | No general jurisdiction — BMS not "at home" in California. |
| Specific jurisdiction — purposeful availment: Did BMS purposefully direct activities at CA? | Plaintiffs: Yes — nationwide marketing, large CA sales, CA salesforce, CA distributor, R&D presence. | BMS: Contacts insufficiently tied to nonresidents’ out‑of‑state injuries. | Yes — BMS purposefully availed itself of CA forum. |
| Specific jurisdiction — relatedness: Do nonresident claims arise from or relate to BMS’s CA contacts? | Plaintiffs: Claims stem from a single nationwide course of conduct (design, marketing, distribution) that includes CA activities; thus claims bear a substantial connection to CA. | BMS: Nonresidents’ injuries occurred outside CA; CA contacts do not substantially connect to those claims. | Yes — under Vons sliding‑scale test, nationwide marketing + CA R&D/sales create a substantial nexus. |
| Specific jurisdiction — reasonableness: Would asserting jurisdiction offend fair play and substantial justice? | Plaintiffs: Forum is reasonable; judicial economy, CA interest in protecting consumers and in regulating CA distributor, and convenience favor CA. | BMS: Unfair burden to defend hundreds of nonresident claims in CA; other forums more appropriate; federalism concerns. | Yes — court balances factors and finds exercising specific jurisdiction reasonable; BMS did not carry burden to show unreasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum‑contacts test for due process)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (limits general jurisdiction; introduces "at home" concept)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (clarifies that general jurisdiction is confined to forums where a corporation is "at home")
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (adopts sliding‑scale substantial‑connection test for relatedness in specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (emphasizes that due process protects defendant’s liberty and that contacts must be the defendant’s own)