Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.
137 S. Ct. 1773
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, sold Plavix nationwide and had significant but not "at-home" contacts with California (research facilities, sales reps, ~250 sales reps, ~$900M Plavix sales in CA).
- Plaintiffs: 86 California residents and 592 nonresidents from 33 other states sued in California state court under California law for injuries allegedly caused by Plavix. Nonresidents did not obtain, ingest, or suffer injury from Plavix in California.
- California trial court initially found general jurisdiction; after Daimler, appellate courts concluded general jurisdiction was lacking but found specific jurisdiction over nonresident claims under a California “sliding scale” approach.
- California Supreme Court affirmed specific jurisdiction based on BMS’s extensive in-state contacts and similarity between resident and nonresident claims.
- U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed: held California courts lacked specific jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs because there was no connection between California and the nonresidents’ claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California can exercise specific jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs who were injured and treated outside California for claims identical to California residents’ claims | Nonresidents: CA can assert specific jurisdiction because BMS purposefully availed itself of CA market and the nationwide course of conduct (marketing/distribution) gave rise to identical claims | BMS: Specific jurisdiction requires an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy; nonresidents’ claims have no connection to CA | Held: No specific jurisdiction — nonresidents’ claims lack the required connection to CA even though BMS has extensive but unrelated forum contacts |
| Whether a defendant’s extensive, unrelated in-state activities can relax the required nexus for specific jurisdiction (“sliding scale” approach) | CA majority: Extensive forum contacts justify a relaxed nexus showing for related claims | BMS: Sliding-scale approach improperly dilutes the distinction between specific and general jurisdiction | Held: Rejected the sliding-scale; general forum contacts unrelated to the claim do not satisfy specific-jurisdiction nexus requirement |
| Whether plaintiffs can rely on defendant’s relationship with a third party (California distributor McKesson) to establish jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: Contracting with CA distributor that distributed Plavix nationwide supports jurisdiction | BMS: Relationship with third party alone is insufficient absent joint acts or derivative liability | Held: Mere use of a California distributor does not establish personal jurisdiction over BMS for nonresident claims |
| Whether precedents (Keeton, Shutts, Walden) permit California’s exercise of jurisdiction here | Plaintiffs: Keeton and Shutts support jurisdiction for out-of-state harms in some contexts | BMS: Walden requires a direct link between forum and claim and limits use of third-party/forum-resident connections | Held: Keeton and Shutts do not control; Walden supports requirement that the claim arise out of defendant’s forum contacts; Shutts concerns plaintiffs’ due-process rights in class actions and is not controlling here |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum-contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (limits on jurisdiction as an instrument of interstate federalism)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (jurisdiction where defendant exploited forum market; damages outside forum may be adjudicated)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (restricting general jurisdiction to forums where corporation is "at home")
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinguishing general and specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (plaintiff cannot base jurisdiction solely on defendant’s contacts with forum resident; need connection between defendant, forum, and claim)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (due process rules for keeping nonresident class members in class-action adjudication differs from personal-jurisdiction analysis)