Main Content
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.
Shutts concerned litigants' personal jurisdictional rights in a class action context. Bristol-Myers Squibb is not a class action case, but it also concerns litigants' personal jurisdictional rights, and its holding may apply to class actions. What is the difference between the personal jurisdiction issue in Shutts and that in Bristol-Myers Squibb?
In this case, a group of plaintiffs — most of whom were not California residents — sued Bristol–Myers Squibb Company (BMS) in California state court, alleging that the company's drug Plavix had damaged their health. The action relied on a simple joinder of parties (as opposed to a class action).
BMS was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York. Although it engaged in business activities in California and sold Plavix there, BMS did not develop a marketing strategy for, manufacture, package, or work on the regulatory approval for Plavix in California. Some of the plaintiffs were California residents who obtained and consumed Plavix in California. Others were not California residents. These nonresident plaintiffs did not allege that they obtained Plavix from a California source, that they were injured by Plavix in California, or that they were treated for their injuries in California.
BMS challenged whether California courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over it with respect to the nonresidents’ claims. The California Superior Court held that BMS’s extensive activities in the state gave the California courts general jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims. The state Court of Appeal found that while the California courts lacked general jurisdiction, they had specific jurisdiction over the claims brought by the nonresident plaintiffs. The California Supreme Court affirmed and applied a “sliding scale approach” to jurisdiction (something of a mixture of specific and general jurisdiction), concluding that BMS's “wide ranging” contacts with California were enough to support a finding of specific jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certioari.
Note: the H2O Casebook editing functions did not work well for this case. If you'd prefer, you may stop reading after the following sentence: "What is needed-and what is missing here-is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue."
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.