United States: Amicus Briefs Not So Friendly to California Supreme Court's Dreadful BMS Personal Jurisdiction Decision

Last Updated: November 24 2016
Article by Stephen J. McConnell

We do a lot of grousing on this blog, but we acknowledge that there is much for which we should be thankful. This legal business permits us to keep our minds lively and our fingernails clean. Even the rotten decisions aren't totally awful; they force us to stay busy, offer a fine target for snark, and it is beyond glorious when logic and justice eventually triumph and eradicate the offending ruling. (We're looking at you Conte. Your days are numbered.)

The Supreme Court's decision in Bauman is an example of the beneficent arc of history. After decades of doctrinal incoherence on personal jurisdiction, under which a large corporation could pretty much be sued anywhere for anything, SCOTUS restored common sense by holding that a court could exercise general personal jurisdiction over a corporation only if that corporation was "at home" in that jurisdiction – which pretty much was limited to the place of incorporation or principal place of business. We blogged about Bauman more than once, but you can start here. Around the same time as Bauman, SCOTUS issued the Walden v. Fiore opinion, which limited specific jurisdiction over corporations to cases where the corporation's conduct targeted the jurisdiction and gave rise to the action in that jurisdiction. Simple, right?

Wrong, says the California Supreme Court. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court was a classic exercise in mass tort litigation tourism, as plaintiff lawyers cobbled together a group of plaintiffs who claimed that they had been injured by ingesting Plavix. Out of 678 plaintiffs, only 86 lived in California. The other 592 plaintiffs neither lived in California nor sustained any injury there. It is not as if those plaintiffs knocked back Plavix after enduring the scary experience of Space Mountain at Disneyland or the Angels' ineptitude at the Big A in Anaheim. None of the Plavix was manufactured in California. Clearly, the plaintiff lawyers had engaged in transparent forum-shopping, hoping that their non-California plaintiffs would benefit from pro-plaintiff California jurors and rulings.

And now here comes another one of those pro-plaintiff rulings. The California Supreme Court admitted that Bauman meant that general personal jurisdiction could not extend to BMS, which had the wisdom not to incorporate or locate its principal place of business in California. Adios to all those non-California plaintiffs, right? Wrong again, says the California Supreme Court, which, in a 4-3 decision, expanded specific jurisdiction to the point where it pretty much gobbles up general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction extends to a defendant when the plaintiff's claim arose from or related to the defendant's conduct. That obviously works for the California plaintiffs. How does it work for the non-Californians? That's the right question. The California Supreme Court came up with the wrong answer. It held that "[a] claim need not arise directly from the defendant's forum contacts in order to be sufficiently related to the contact to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction." That holding seems as wrong as can be. But if not "directly," what is enough? The California Supreme Court said it was enough that Plavix marketing throughout the nation was the same, plus BMS had employees and facilities in California. Huh? There is also a flavor of pendent jurisdiction in the court's holding. Since you, BMS, have to be in California anyway to defend against the claims of Californians, why not stay a while, have some avocadoes and almonds, and take on all those Illini, Hoosiers, Texans, etc. while you're at it? Either that is part and parcel of the court's theory, or maybe the court would have smiled on a case brought only by non-Californians. The fact that we are not sure that is not so is testament to the California Supreme Court's penchant for result-oriented lunacy.

Look, the California opinion was a blatant instance of juridical overreaching, if not flat-out defiance. We did not enjoy reading it. But we did enjoy blogging about the opinion's many howlers – here and here for example. Our harsh view of the California Supreme Court's 'reasoning' was almost as excoriating as the dissent opinion.

This week we enjoyed reading the amicus briefs recently filed in support of the petition for certiorari filed, which asked SCOTUS to correct the California error. You can find the briefs on the wonderful SCOTUS blog. One of those briefs was filed by one of our clients, so we won't say anything about that one, except to remark that it is just as excellent and wonderful and helpful as the client's fine products and stellar in-house lawyers. Let's talk briefly about the briefs filed by (1) the Chamber of Commerce and American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), (2) Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), (3) the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), and (4) the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF). As one would expect, these briefs make many of the same points, but they also differ slightly in their emphases.

Chamber of Commerce/ATRA

This brief makes the point that, contrary to the California Supreme Court's position, there must be a direct connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's cause of action for specific jurisdiction to lie. The California Supreme Court's sliding scale approach – the greater the corporate defendant's presence in California, the less connection to the cause of action is required – is a mess that finds support precisely nowhere. Nothing in SCOTUS precedents "suggests that mere parallelism between a defendant's in-State conduct and the conduct that allegedly caused an out-of-State injury is enough to create specific jurisdiction over the out-of-State claim." Moreover, the California Supreme Court's ruling breeds uncertainty. Companies cannot calibrate their actions and sales to possible litigation exposure in California. In for a penny, in for billions. Instead, California has essentially blessed forum shopping by plaintiff lawyers. That approach not only guarantees further crowding of the California court system, but it also wounds federalism. States might want to see to the vindication of their own citizens' claims, but now those claims will head to California and other heckholes.

PhRMA

The California standard is "formless." It provides no real guidance. Instead, it turns California into a "magnet" – a polite word for heckhole, which is, in turn, a polite word for what we really mean. The brief likens California to what has been going on in St. Louis, where local judges seem almost gleefully eager to prove their proficiency at home cooking for the local plaintiffs' bar. PhRMA's first argument heading is nothing short of brilliant: "WHETHER CALIFORNIA COURTS CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY SERVE AS NATIONAL COURTS FOR RESOLVING CLAIMS OF OUT-OF-STATE PLAINTIFFS IS A PROFOUND AND RECURRING QUESTION." Like all artfully phrased questions, it answers itself. The brief includes fascinating statistics, such as that in 2900+ cases recently filed in LA and San Francisco counties against pharmaceutical companies, there were over 25,000 plaintiffs, with only 10.1% residing in California. PhRMA also decries the difficulty in bringing live treating physician testimony for out of state plaintiffs (though that would also usually be true if the case was filed in the defendant's home state, and no one doubts jurisdiction there). The PhRMA brief makes good use of the dissent in the California case, especially the observation that the majority opinion "expands specific jurisdiction to the point that, for a large category of defendants, it becomes indistinguishable from general jurisdiction."

PLAC

This brief does a marvelous job of tracing the origin of the doctrinal confusion to Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984), where SCOTUS was unclear on what "arise from" and "relating to' mean, or whether there is any difference between them. SCOTUS had the chance to clear things up in Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 499 U.S. 585 (1991), but went off on another issue. Since SCOTUS created this ambiguity, it is up to SCOTUS to clarify. As with several of these amicus briefs, PLAC makes the point that the California ultra-expansive view of "relating to" means an utter lack of predictability for corporations as to where they might get sued. (This argument probably does have practical significance. Then again, we wonder whether, in a way, crummy rulings can create predictability. Isn't it becoming predictable that plaintiff lawyers will, by hook or crook, find ways to sue in heckholes such as California, Madison County, and St. Louis? It reminds us of search and seizure law, where court decisions themselves can influence expectations of privacy.). PLAC takes a whack at the California court's reliance on the nationwide similarity of the product marketing. Regularity regimes impose a certain degree of uniformity, and the "nationwide advertising" rationale "is potentially far-reaching given the ubiquitous use of social media and the internet today by companies of all sizes." Moreover, the California "sliding scale" for measuring whether a "substantial connection" only "compounds the indeterminacy and unpredictability." That sliding scale ends up being a fig leaf covering up a blessing of plaintiff forum shopping. PLAC also demonstrates that this personal jurisdiction issue is recurring, important (often dispositive), and implicates concerns over whether other countries will reciprocate with similarly absurd jurisdictional claims.

WLF

This brief convincingly shows that the California decision undermines Bauman and is inconsistent with Walden. In Walden, SCOTUS referred to jurisdiction arising from the defendant's "suit-related conduct." Any large company in America "that aspires to conduct business on a nationwide basis has no choice but to conduct business in California" – probably lots of it. The "limitless" nature of specific jurisdiction in the BMS case ensures forum-shopping and prevents companies from being able to "structure their conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit." Finally, the BMS case is well set up for SCOTUS review because the issues are clear and the facts are uncontested.

All in all, these briefs are superb. Unlike the California decision, they actually make sense. Unlike the California decision, they respect SCOTUS precedent. We are grateful for the fine work that went into these briefs, and will be even more grateful when SCOTUS sets things aright.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions