175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Dozens of California residents and hundreds of non-resident plaintiffs (659 originally; 84 California residents and 575 non-residents) sued Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and McKesson in coordinated San Francisco actions alleging defects in the drug Plavix.
- BMS moved to quash service as to the non-resident plaintiffs (RPI), arguing lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion, finding California had general jurisdiction over BMS based on substantial in-state contacts (sales, offices, employees, registration, agent for service).
- After the California Court of Appeal initially summarily denied BMS’s writ, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Daimler v. Bauman narrowing general-jurisdiction analysis; California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back.
- Applying Daimler, the Court of Appeal concluded California does not have general (all-purpose) jurisdiction over BMS, but—on an independent review of undisputed facts—found specific (case-linked) jurisdiction appropriate.
- The court held BMS has extensive, purposeful contacts with California (large Plavix sales, offices, employees, distributor relationship with San Francisco-based McKesson) that are substantially connected to the RPIs’ claims, and BMS failed to show asserting jurisdiction would be unreasonable.
- Result: trial court’s denial of the motion to quash is affirmed on the basis of specific jurisdiction; general-jurisdiction basis vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California has general (all-purpose) jurisdiction over BMS | RPI relied on BMS’s long-standing, systematic California contacts (sales, offices, employees) to support general jurisdiction | BMS invoked Goodyear/Daimler: general jurisdiction only where corporation is "at home" (place of incorporation or principal place of business except in rare cases) | No — Daimler forecloses general jurisdiction here; BMS not "essentially at home" in California |
| Whether California has specific (case-linked) jurisdiction over BMS for the non-resident plaintiffs' Plavix claims | RPI: BMS purposefully availed itself of California market; sale of Plavix in CA is substantially connected to RPIs’ identical claims; presence of CA-resident co-plaintiffs and CA-based distributor (McKesson) supports relatedness and judicial economy | BMS: RPIs’ injuries didn’t occur in CA; claims not sufficiently related to BMS’s CA activities; permitting joinder would let plaintiffs evade due process limits | Yes — minimum contacts and "substantial connection" satisfied; the defendant purposefully directed activities at CA and the claims relate to those activities |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable (fair play and substantial justice) | RPI: burden on BMS is not disproportionate; CA has strong interest in adjudicating claims and in judicial economy from coordinating resident and non-resident claims | BMS: subjecting it to hundreds of nonresident claims in CA is unduly burdensome and unfair | No — BMS failed to make the required compelling showing of unreasonableness; factors (burden, forum interest, plaintiffs’ interest, judicial economy) favor CA jurisdiction |
| Whether pendent personal jurisdiction doctrine applies to permit RPIs to proceed with resident plaintiffs | RPIs/ amici noted judicial-economy rationale for treating related claims together | BMS did not press a pendent-jurisdiction theory to defeat jurisdiction | Court: pendent personal jurisdiction is a federal supplemental-jurisdiction doctrine and not directly applicable, but its policy (avoidance of piecemeal litigation) supports specific-jurisdiction result |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits general-jurisdiction inquiries; corporation subject to all-purpose jurisdiction only where it is "at home")
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render corporate defendant "at home")
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established minimum-contacts framework and conception of "fair play and substantial justice")
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (specific-jurisdiction analysis: purposeful availment and reasonableness inquiry)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (specific jurisdiction can support suit by nonresidents when defendant deliberately exploits forum market)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (specific jurisdiction depends on defendant's own forum contacts, not contacts of third parties)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) (California adoption of the "substantial connection" test for relatedness in specific-jurisdiction analysis)
- Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 1054 (Cal. 2005) (applies Vons principles; evaluates relatedness and reasonableness factors)
- Cornelison v. Chaney, 16 Cal.3d 143 (Cal. 1976) (early California case articulating relationship-based jurisdictional analysis and interstate-business considerations)