582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, with substantial operations in New York and New Jersey.1
BMS manufactures and sells Plavix, a prescription blood thinner, but did not develop the drug, create its marketing strategy, manufacture it, label it, package it, or obtain regulatory approval for it in California.2 Between 2006 and 2012, BMS sold nearly 187 million Plavix pills in California and earned more than $900 million from those sales.3
In 2012, 86 California residents and 592 residents from 33 other states filed eight separate complaints in California Superior Court against BMS, asserting 13 claims under California law based on injuries allegedly caused by Plavix.4 The 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.5
BMS moved to quash service of summons on the nonresidents' claims, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction.6 The Superior Court denied the motion, finding general jurisdiction based on BMS's extensive activities in California.7 Following this Court's decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Court of Appeal held that general jurisdiction was lacking but concluded that specific jurisdiction existed over the nonresidents' claims.8 The California Supreme Court affirmed, applying a sliding scale approach under which the more wide ranging the defendant's forum contacts, the more readily is shown a connection between the forum contacts and the claim.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the California courts' exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims.10
Whether the California courts' exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?11
For a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.12 When no such connection exists, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant's unconnected activities in the State.13 The primary concern in assessing personal jurisdiction is the burden on the defendant, which encompasses submitting to the coercive power of a State that may have little legitimate interest in the claims in question.14
Yes. The 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.15 BMS did not develop, create a marketing strategy for, manufacture, label, package, or work on the regulatory approval for Plavix in California.16 The mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims.17
BMS's extensive activities in California unrelated to the nonresidents' claims are insufficient to establish the required connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.18
The California courts lack specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims because there is no adequate link between the State and those claims, violating the Due Process Clause.19
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Sotomayor dissented. She argued that the majority's approach imposes an unduly rigid barrier to specific jurisdiction by requiring an in-state injury for every plaintiff even when the defendant has engaged in a nationwide course of conduct.20 She reasoned that the nonresidents' claims relate to BMS's purposeful availment of the California market through marketing, distribution via McKesson, and substantial in-state sales and facilities.21 In her view fairness is satisfied when identical claims by residents and nonresidents are litigated together.22
She concluded that the decision will hinder aggregation of claims and force piecemeal litigation without advancing any legitimate federalism interest against a large corporate defendant.23