In an 8-1 ruling, the justices overturned a lower court's decision that had allowed hundreds of out-of-state patients who took Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s blood-thinning medication Plavix to sue the company in California. Almost 700 plaintiffs, only 86 of whom are California residents, filed eight separate complaints in California Superior Court [official website] asserting that the drug had damaged their health.
The justices, voting 8-1, said the California Supreme Court was wrong to let nearly 600 non-Californians join 86 state residents in claiming Bristol-Myers misrepresented the risk of heart attacks and strokes. California has been be a particularly friendly state for injured plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that because BMS contracted with a California advertising company provides a basis for specific jurisdiction but the court stated that the fact "that BMS contracted with a California distributor is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction in the State".
Plavix wasn't developed in California, and the company did not develop a marketing strategy for it there.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted to affirm the California courts' rulings. "It follows that the California courts can not claim specific jurisdiction".
The ruling was one of a series this term limiting so-called forum shopping, where plaintiffs' attorneys file suit in a state or federal court they believe will be sympathetic to their claims.
Queen's Speech ditched next year to allow greater Brexit laws scrutiny
Political observers will now be awaiting details of the Queen's speech which will outline the government program for new bills. Initially, the speech from the throne was scheduled for Monday June 19, but postponed until Wednesday.
In 19 business-related cases that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce participated in by filing briefs backing companies, the lobbying group was on the winning side in 13 of them, with two yet to be decided. The Montana Supreme Court had found jurisdiction because the railway runs through the state and employs thousands of people there. "BMS concedes that such suits could be brought in either NY or Delaware".
In the June 19 decision released just moments ago, the nation's highest court opined that its conclusion "will not result in the parade of horribles that respondents conjure up". The California Supreme Court ruled that, because the nonresident claims were similar to those of California residents, those activities were sufficient.
The state Supreme Court's reasoning "is hard to square with our precedents", Alito wrote.
I fear the consequences of the Court's decision today will be substantial. It will make it impossible to bring a nationwide mass action in state court against defendants who are "at home" in different states.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a ruling that makes it more hard for plaintiffs attorneys to look for friendly locations for their lawsuits, a practice known as "court shopping".
Comments