United States: Supreme Court Will Review Two Important Cases Regarding Scope Of Personal Jurisdiction

Every first-year law student learns that one of the first questions a defendant must ask is whether the court in which a lawsuit is filed has personal jurisdiction—that is, whether the state or federal court can exercise power over the defendant. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the reach of that power, preventing a court from exercising jurisdiction over a defendant that has no ties to the State in which the court sits.

Applying this limitation, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. General jurisdiction permits courts to adjudicate claims against a defendant arising out of actions occurring anywhere in the world (subject, of course, to any limits specific to a particular cause of action). It requires that the defendant be considered "at home" in the forum.

Specific jurisdiction, by contrast, empowers a court to adjudicate particular claims relating to a defendant's conduct within the forum. To be subject to specific jurisdiction, the defendant must have established contacts with the forum, and the lawsuit must arise out of those contacts.

Both of these forms of personal jurisdiction have been examined by the Supreme Court in recent years, but the lower courts remain in disarray over how to apply the Court's precedents. Likely for that reason, the Court has recently agreed to review two cases addressing both facets of personal jurisdiction.

First, the Court granted certiorari in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, in which (in our view) the Montana courts failed to honor Supreme Court precedent establishing limits on general jurisdiction. Second, the Court granted review in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, in which the California courts similarly flouted the limits on specific jurisdiction by allowing out-of-state plaintiffs to sue in California for claims that have nothing to do with the state. Defendants who face class and mass actions should follow both cases closely, and both will be important barometers for whether the Court is committed to maintaining strict limits on the scope of personal jurisdiction. (We filed an amicus brief (pdf) for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Bristol-Myers Squibb explaining the disarray in the lower courts and why that case in particular warranted Supreme Court review.)

BNSF v. Tyrrell

For companies that do business in many States, the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman was a game-changer. Prior to Daimler, many courts had held that corporations could be subjected to general personal jurisdiction—and thus haled into a State's courts for claims unrelated to activities within that State—in any State in which they did a large volume of business.

But in Daimler, the Court held that general personal jurisdiction is ordinarily available only in the two places where a business is "at home"— the company's State of incorporation and its principal place of business. Indeed, the Court held, general jurisdiction will only exist outside those two locations in "exceptional circumstances."

As businesses know, it is commonplace for plaintiffs who are bringing class actions or mass claims to shop for a preferred forum (often a judicial "hellhole" (pdf)) when suing a corporate defendant. Daimler's due process holding affords defendants at least some protection from that kind of forum-shopping: Plaintiffs cannot simply pick the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in which the defendant does business; rather, they must either sue in the place where the events giving rise to their claims occurred (relying on specific personal jurisdiction) or sue in the defendant's State of incorporation or principal place of business (relying on general jurisdiction). In response, plaintiffs' lawyers—and plaintiff-friendly courts—have resorted to a number of stratagems in an attempt to get around Daimler.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell exemplifies that tactic. In Tyrrell (pdf), the Montana Supreme Court relied on two dubious justifications in concluding that Daimler did not apply and that BNSF was subject to general jurisdiction in Montana—even though its State of incorporation and principal place of business are both elsewhere. As we discuss below, the Montana Supreme Court's attempt to circumvent Daimler is misguided and should be overturned

The plaintiffs in Tyrrell are two employees (one former and one current) of BNSF who seek damages from the company under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which provides railroad employees with a federal cause of action for personal injuries caused by their employers' negligence. Neither plaintiff resides in Montana, nor was either one injured there. Nevertheless, both plaintiffs sued in Montana on the theory that BNSF is subject to general jurisdiction in that State. In our view, that approach cannot be squared with Daimler, given that BNSF is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Texas.

A divided Montana Supreme Court nonetheless held that Daimler did not apply, for two reasons. First, the majority argued, Daimler's holding is limited to the facts of that case—i.e., to disputes "brought by foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant based on events occurring entirely outside the United States." Second, the majority pointed to Section 56 of FELA, which provides that a plaintiff may bring suit in any federal district in which the defendant does business and gives state courts "concurrent" jurisdiction over FELA suits. The majority argued that Section 56 should be read to give State courts not only subject-matter jurisdiction over FELA claims but also general personal jurisdiction.

Both of these conclusions are deeply misguided. First, nothing in Daimler suggests that the Court's holding was limited to cases involving foreign corporations. Indeed, though Daimler itself involved a foreign defendant, the Court's analysis referred to the States' power to exercise jurisdiction over "sister-state" corporations as well as "foreign-country" corporations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, countless courts have relied on Daimler in cases involving a corporation domiciled in one State and being sued in another—including every federal court of appeals to consider the issue.

Second, the Montana Supreme Court's reading of Section 56 is equally untenable. As the dissent below put it, "Section 56 is a venue statute for the federal courts." The statute refers to the "concurrent" jurisdiction of State courts, but that is clearly meant as a grant of subject-matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction.

Moreover, even if Section 56 purported to give State courts general personal jurisdiction over the defendants in every FELA case, regardless of where the defendant is incorporated or headquartered, that grant of jurisdiction would violate the U.S. Constitution. Congress cannot authorize either federal or State courts to exercise personal jurisdiction where such jurisdiction is barred by the constitutional guarantee of due process. And as the Supreme Court has explained many times, including in Daimler, due process prohibits a State from exercising general personal jurisdiction over a defendant that is not "at home" in the State.

In Daimler, the Supreme Court articulated a straightforward and predictable rule governing general personal jurisdiction that is vitally important to businesses. As the Supreme Court has often noted, clear jurisdictional rules are desirable because they allow businesses to better predict where they might be subjected to suit. In our view, the Court should take the opportunity provided in Tyrrell to affirm that Daimler means what it says.

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court

Just as the Court carefully limited general jurisdiction in Daimler, it also recently reaffirmed the limited nature of specific jurisdiction, in Walden v. Fiore. Walden emphasized that the specific jurisdiction inquiry "focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation"; "[f]or a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State."

Although Walden and prior Supreme Court cases make clear that a plaintiff's claims must be related to the defendant's forum contacts, some lower courts have sought to get around this relatedness requirement by taking an unduly expansive view of when claims are considered related to the defendant's in-state activity. Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (BMS), is a perfect example.

The plaintiffs in BMS are 661 individuals who took BMS's blood-thinning medication Plavix. The plaintiffs assert a number of product-defect claims relating to their use of the drug.

In this mass action, 575 of the 661 plaintiffs reside outside California. As to these plaintiffs, BMS moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that California lacked specific jurisdiction over these plaintiffs' claims because none of the events relevant to their claim occurred in California: they did not take the drug in California, it was not marketed to them in California, and it was not designed or manufactured in California. (General jurisdiction is unavailable under Daimler because BMS is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in other states).

The California Supreme Court held (pdf) that California courts could exercise specific jurisdiction over these out-of-state plaintiffs' claims. It concluded that specific jurisdiction does not require that a plaintiff's claims "arise directly from the defendant's forum contacts" or be causally linked to those contacts in any way. Instead, the court held, it was sufficient that the in-state and out-of-state plaintiffs' claims were "based on the same allegedly defective product and the assertedly misleading marketing and promotion of that product" as part of a "common nationwide course of distribution."

That holding cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent. The Court has held, most recently in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, that specific jurisdiction may be exercised only with respect to "activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation." (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). This means that in order to invoke specific jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise directly out of the defendant's in-state conduct.

The out-of-State plaintiffs in BMS do not allege any activity that occurred in California; every operative event underlying their claims took place outside the State. Thus, none of petitioner's "suit-related conduct" with respect to these claims had any connection to California, let alone the direct, "substantial connection" required by Walden. In essence, the California court held that BMS could be subjected to specific jurisdiction in California for these out-of-state claims merely because its alleged in-state conduct with respect to the claims of in-state plaintiffs paralleled its alleged conduct in other states. But that rule would expand specific jurisdiction beyond any reasonable limit. If the California Supreme Court were correct, product manufacturers would effectively be subject to general jurisdiction in every state in which they sell their products, because any plaintiff who purchased the product could bring suit in any state where the product was sold, simply by alleging that the manufacturer engaged in a "common nationwide course of distribution." That would undermine Daimler's framework—which, as discussed above, contemplates that a corporation should be subject to general jurisdiction only in its state of incorporation and principal place of business.

The result of this boundless approach to specific jurisdiction would be increased uncertainty for product manufacturers, who would lose all ability to anticipate where they might be sued in mass actions. That is the exact opposite of the predictability that the Supreme Court has sought to foster in jurisdictional rules. It would also allow for untrammeled forum shopping by plaintiffs, who would flock to the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions (no matter how inconvenient for the parties) in order to bring suit.

Now that the Court has decided to review BMS, we hope it will overturn the California Supreme Court's decision and reaffirm that in order to qualify for specific jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must directly arise out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state.

We will be watching both of these cases closely.

Originally published on January 24, 2017

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2017. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

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