United States: Solicitor General Urges Supreme Court To Reverse California's Ill-Conceived Version Of "Specific Jurisdiction"

Last Updated: March 16 2017
Article by Steven Boranian

The Defendant/Petitioner has filed its merits brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in BMS v. Superior Court. This is the case where the California Supreme Court expanded specific personal jurisdiction beyond recognition by basing specific jurisdiction on a pharmaceutical company's forum contacts involving different products and people other than the plaintiffs. We wrote about the opinion and its problems here, here, and here, and the opinion came in at number one on our 2016 worst ten list.

As expected, the Petitioner pharmaceutical company has put forth compelling arguments that the California Supreme Court's version of specific jurisdiction runs against binding precedent and is an all-around bad idea. The Petitioner is also joined by a number of amici, most notably the United States of America. (You can view all the briefs on the SCOTUSblog here.) If we have been critical of the Solicitor General in the past, we will voice no concern this time around. The SG hit the nail on the head, and the United States' brief reinforces the Petitioner's very strong arguments—and adds another, which we will get to in a minute.

First, the briefs. The general thrust of both briefs is that the California Supreme Court's "sliding scale" approach to specific jurisdiction impossibly contradicts binding precedent. A court simply court cannot base specific jurisdiction on a defendant's forum contacts involving other individuals and other products, no matter how intense those contacts are.

For the Petitioner, it comes down mainly to one concept—proximate causation. That is to say, for a claim to "arise from or relate to" a defendant's forum contacts, the defendant's activities in the state must be a proximate cause of the plaintiff's lawsuit. Take, for example, this opening salvo:

The [California Supreme Court] concluded that Bristol-Myers could be haled into California on respondents' claims merely because Bristol-Myers sold Plavix to other persons and developed other products in the State.

That is not how specific jurisdiction works. Since International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), this Court has made clear time and again that "specific or case-linked" jurisdiction requires a causal connection between the defendant's forum conduct and the litigation. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). That bedrock requirement ensures that a common connection links the defendant, the forum, and the litigation; that States do not assert jurisdiction over matters occurring and directed entirely outside their borders; and that any litigation to which a defendant is subject is a direct and foreseeable consequence of its in-state activities. Courts cannot dispense with this causation requirement because a defendant has wide-ranging contacts with a State. Only general jurisdiction allows that, and then only where the defendant is at home.

Petitioner's Br. at 2. This is (or at least should be) an uncontroversial description of specific jurisdiction, and the Petitioner draws from it that specific jurisdiction requires a "causal connection" between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's claims. Id. at 14.

Here, the difference between general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction is key: "General jurisdiction depends on the intensity of a defendant's affiliations with a State relative to his activities as a whole. . . . [¶] Specific jurisdiction, by contrast depends on there being a 'relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.'" Petitioner's Br. at 15 (citations omitted). That relationship requires a link between (1) the defendant and the forum and (2) the forum and the litigation. Id. at 15-16. And that link is formed by causation—the defendant's forum contacts must have caused the plaintiff's alleged injury and the resulting lawsuit. Id. at 16-17.

It is difficult to argue with this proposition. The Petitioner cites a number of Supreme Court opinions finding specific jurisdiction over claims arising from the very activity that the defendant conducted in the state. Conversely, "in no instance has the Court found specific jurisdiction based on any relationship other than a causal one between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's suit." Id. at 20.

A number of policy reasons support this position: It prevents states from impinging on their co-equal sovereigns, it allows defendants to predict where they are subject to jurisdiction and where they are not, and it is eminently fair. It will come as no surprise to our readers that "fairness" is where we think the brief really sings. This case exists because of mass tort litigation tourism and blatant forum shopping, where hundreds of non-California plaintiffs combined their lawsuits with hundreds of unrelated Californians for tactical reasons.

Simply put, "[d]ue process has no interest in encouraging forum shopping of this kind." Id. at 32. We agree, and we like this quote too:

It makes no difference that a State may be adjudicating claims of a similar subject matter brought by its own residents. Litigation of such claims does not change the fact that for the non-resident plaintiffs—whose claims did not arise within the State . . . —the court will need to oversee the collection and presentation of trial evidence gathered from far-away forums, undertake a choice-of-law analysis with respect to each forum's laws, and potentially apply the laws of those other forums to all or parts of each non-resident plaintiff's claims. There are multiple ways to promote efficiency and judicial economy in mass tort litigation without sidelining specific jurisdiction principles, and without imposing these sorts or demands on trial courts.

Id. (emphasis added). That last part is really important, because the plaintiffs' retort will be that massing hundreds of cases in California is efficient. But efficiency does not trump due process, and it's a false promise in any event. If Plaintiff were truly interested in efficiency, there are multiple ways to promote efficiency without altering constitutional rights: The plaintiffs could sue together in New York or Delaware, where the courts have general jurisdiction over the company; they could have sued in federal court and gone to the MDL; the plaintiffs could have banded together in their respective home states.

The Petitioner and the United States both emphasize this point, with the Petitioner observing that "the rationale for suing in a forum with no causal link to the plaintiff's claim is more likely tactical: an attempt, usually at the insistence of a plaintiff's attorney, to pick a forum perceived to be particularly plaintiff-friendly." Id. at 31 (emphasis added). Bingo.

There is more to the briefs, but we have given you the main gist. By divorcing specific jurisdiction from forum contacts that caused the litigation, and instead basing jurisdiction on the intensity of the defendant's unrelated forum contacts, the California Supreme Court collapsed specific jurisdiction into general jurisdiction, while at the same time holding unanimously that general jurisdiction was not available. We continue to scratch our heads at that result.

The United States added one additional point—that "the California Supreme Court's approach could have implications for the United States' international relationships and trade interests." Brief of the United States, at 26-27. As the Solicitor General further explained, it would be "especially problematic" if the California Supreme Court's rule were applied to expose foreign corporations to lawsuits in California "simply because the company in question was engaged in a multijurisdictional course of conduct that gave rise to at least some claims of injury within that forum State." Id. at 27. The Solicitor General also expressed skepticism about the plaintiffs' motives: "Nor is there any guarantee that plaintiffs who have their choice of jurisdictions would seek out forum where litigation is more convenient . . . —rather that joining claims with those of resident plaintiffs in forums with the procedural rules or jury pools that the plaintiffs consider most favorable."

The case is set for argument on April 25, 2017. There is, by the way, a second personal jurisdiction case on the Supreme Court's argument calendar on that day—a FELA case that similarly involves a non-resident plaintiff suing non-resident defendant. It will be an interesting day.

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
 
In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.