M.M. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC
2016 IL App (1st) 151909
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Eight minor plaintiffs from six states (two Illinois residents; others in FL, CO, VA, MI, WI) sued GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in Cook County alleging Paxil caused congenital birth defects via defective design/warnings and negligent testing/analysis.
- Plaintiffs alleged GSK ran multicenter Paxil clinical trials that included 17 Illinois investigators across 10 Illinois cities between 1985–2003 (18–21 Illinois trials), and that Illinois trial data was aggregated into the overall analysis informing Paxil’s warnings.
- GSK moved to dismiss out-of-state plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction (no general or specific jurisdiction); it conceded purposeful contacts but argued plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from Illinois contacts and that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable.
- Discovery showed GSK employed hundreds in Illinois, marketed Paxil in Illinois, maintained an agent for service, and conducted the identified Illinois clinical trial activity.
- The trial court denied GSK’s motion, finding specific jurisdiction: GSK purposefully availed itself by contracting with Illinois investigators and plaintiffs’ claims arose out of or related to those in-state trials. GSK appealed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 306(a)(3).
- On de novo review the appellate court affirmed, holding plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction and GSK failed to rebut it; the court also found exercising jurisdiction reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois has specific personal jurisdiction over GSK for out-of-state plaintiffs | GSK purposefully directed activities at Illinois by contracting with 17 Illinois investigators to run Paxil trials; plaintiffs’ injuries arise from omissions in those trials (data aggregation, failure to track pregnancies, influence on warning labels) | The Illinois trials were a small fraction of a global program; plaintiffs were not prescribed, injured, or pregnant in Illinois; trials weren’t designed to study pregnancy effects; no causal "but-for" link between Illinois activity and plaintiffs’ injuries | Held: Yes. Plaintiffs met prima facie burden that claims arose out of or related to GSK’s Illinois contacts; GSK failed to present uncontradicted evidence defeating jurisdiction. |
| Whether GSK’s conceded in-state contacts satisfy purposeful availment for specific jurisdiction | Purposeful availment: contracting with Illinois investigators and conducting trials in Illinois constitutes purposeful direction | Conceded purposeful contacts but argued those contacts are insufficiently connected to these plaintiffs’ claims to permit jurisdiction | Held: Contracts and in-state trials over two decades establish purposeful availment. |
| Whether the "arise out of or relate to" prong is satisfied by multicenter trials with Illinois sites | Illinois trial data was aggregated and thus materially contributed to company-wide safety conclusions and labeling relied on by plaintiffs | Scattered trials across many jurisdictions dilute any meaningful link; plaintiffs lack proof that Illinois data drove conclusions; pregnancies may not have occurred in Illinois | Held: The standard is lenient/flexible; plaintiffs pled plausible connections (untracked pregnancies, aggregation of Illinois data, possible investigator input). GSK did not rebut this prima facie showing. |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable (fair play/substantial justice) | Illinois has a strong interest (trials conducted in Illinois), litigation is already proceeding here (Illinois plaintiffs), and piecemeal suits in multiple states would be costly and inefficient | Burden on GSK and witnesses; relevant evidence located outside Illinois; alternative fora (Delaware, NC, PA or plaintiffs’ home states) | Held: Exercising jurisdiction was reasonable given Illinois’ interests, the ongoing Illinois litigation, and lack of persuasive burden evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits general-jurisdiction inquiry; defendant not "at home" in every state)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and specific-jurisdiction framework)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (due-process limits on personal jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (forum may assert jurisdiction based on defendant’s in-state business even if plaintiff nonresident)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (general vs. specific contacts analysis)