Master Supreme Court limits state courts’ specific personal jurisdiction to claims that have a concrete link to the forum. with this comprehensive case brief.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court is a cornerstone modern case on specific personal jurisdiction that sharply limits plaintiffs’ ability to aggregate multistate mass-tort claims in a single state court. Building on International Shoe, Goodyear, Daimler, and Walden, the Court held that a defendant’s extensive forum contacts cannot support specific jurisdiction over claims by nonresident plaintiffs when those claims lack a concrete, claim-specific connection to the forum. The decision rejects the “sliding scale” theory that strong forum contacts can compensate for a weak or nonexistent link between the forum and the particular claims at issue.
Practically, the decision curbs forum shopping in mass torts, requiring that each plaintiff’s claim arise out of or relate to the defendant’s in-state conduct. It also signals that due process protects not only fairness to the defendant but also federalism concerns about the territorial limits of state courts. While the case leaves open questions about federal-court jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment and Rule 4(k), and was later clarified (not overruled) by Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, it remains a critical anchor in the personal jurisdiction canon.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017)
Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York. It manufactures and markets the prescription drug Plavix nationwide. BMS maintained significant operations in California, including research and laboratory facilities and a large sales force, and contracted with McKesson Corporation, a California-based distributor, to distribute Plavix. Hundreds of plaintiffs filed a coordinated mass action in California state court alleging injuries from Plavix caused by defective design, failure to warn, misrepresentation, and related tort theories. The group comprised 86 California residents and 592 residents of other states. The nonresident plaintiffs did not allege that they obtained, were prescribed, purchased, ingested, or were injured by Plavix in California; their injuries occurred in their home states. BMS conceded that California courts had specific jurisdiction over the California residents’ claims but moved to quash service as to the nonresidents’ claims against BMS. The California courts applied a “sliding scale” approach, reasoning that BMS’s extensive forum contacts and the similarity of the out-of-state and in-state claims sufficed for specific jurisdiction. The California Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
May a state court exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for claims by nonresident plaintiffs that lack a causal or relational connection to the defendant’s forum contacts, based solely on the defendant’s extensive forum activities and the similarity of the nonresidents’ claims to those of resident plaintiffs?
Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the suit arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state; there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally an activity or occurrence that takes place in the forum and is thus subject to the state’s regulation. The relationship must be based on the defendant’s own suit-related contacts with the forum, not the plaintiff’s contacts or the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there. A defendant’s extensive forum contacts cannot, under a “sliding scale,” substitute for or relax the required connection between the forum and each specific claim. General jurisdiction exists only where a defendant is “at home,” typically its place of incorporation or principal place of business.
No. California courts lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims against BMS because those claims did not arise out of or relate to BMS’s contacts with California. The similarity between nonresidents’ claims and those of California residents, BMS’s extensive forum activities, and its contract with a California distributor did not supply the necessary claim-specific link.
The Court, per Justice Alito, emphasized that due process requires a connection between the forum and the specific claims asserted. Although BMS had extensive contacts with California—research facilities, a large sales force, and substantial sales—those contacts did not render it “at home” for general jurisdiction (Daimler), and they were not sufficiently connected to the nonresidents’ claims for specific jurisdiction. The nonresident plaintiffs were not prescribed Plavix in California, did not purchase or ingest it in California, and did not suffer injury there; nor did they show that their claims flowed from BMS’s California research, marketing, or distribution. Reaffirming Walden v. Fiore, the Court stressed that jurisdiction must arise from the defendant’s suit-related conduct creating a substantial connection with the forum state itself, not from contacts with forum residents or from similarity to other in-forum claims. California’s “sliding scale” approach—reducing the required relatedness when a defendant’s forum contacts are strong—was incompatible with this defendant-focused, claim-linked analysis. The presence of McKesson, a California distributor and co-defendant, did not change the result; the nonresidents did not obtain Plavix through California channels, and a third party’s forum contacts cannot be imputed to create specific jurisdiction absent a showing that ties the defendant’s forum conduct to the particular claims. The majority also pointed to federalism concerns: states may not assert judicial power over controversies lacking an adequate forum connection. The Court noted that plaintiffs could pursue their claims in states where they were injured or where BMS is at home (New York or Delaware), or potentially in federal court if authorized by federal law—a question the Court expressly left open. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that BMS’s extensive forum activities and the identical nature of the claims should suffice given fairness and efficiency considerations, but the majority held that due process requires a claim-specific forum link.
BMS is a leading modern authority constraining specific jurisdiction in mass torts and other multi-plaintiff cases. It rejects the notion that strong forum contacts or similarity to resident plaintiffs’ claims can substitute for the required nexus between the forum and each plaintiff’s claim. The decision limits state-court aggregation of nationwide claims against out-of-state defendants and channels litigation to defendants’ home states or the states where each plaintiff’s injury occurred. For law students, BMS is essential alongside International Shoe, Walden, Daimler, and Ford. After BMS, courts require a claim-by-claim, plaintiff-by-plaintiff analysis of relatedness. Ford later clarified that “relate to” does not always require strict causation when the plaintiff is injured in the forum and the defendant extensively serves the forum market for the same product line, but BMS continues to bar jurisdiction where nonresident plaintiffs’ injuries occurred elsewhere and lack a forum-specific connection.
Daimler limits general jurisdiction to where a defendant is “at home” (usually incorporation or principal place of business). BMS concerns specific jurisdiction and holds that even extensive forum contacts cannot support jurisdiction over claims lacking a claim-specific link to the forum. Strong contacts alone do not create either general jurisdiction (per Daimler) or specific jurisdiction (per BMS).
BMS does not categorically bar aggregation, but it prevents state courts from exercising specific jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs’ claims that lack a forum connection. Plaintiffs can still aggregate in the defendant’s home state(s), in each plaintiff’s injury state, or potentially in federal court if a federal statute and Rule 4 provide nationwide service or Rule 4(k)(2) applies. Many courts have applied BMS to state-court class actions; federal-court application depends on the governing service rule and the Fifth Amendment, which BMS did not resolve.
BMS requires a concrete affiliation between the forum and the specific claim—typically that the plaintiff’s injury-causing exposure, purchase, prescription, ingestion, or other operative events occurred in the forum. Ford later held that strict but-for causation is not always necessary when the plaintiff is injured in the forum and the defendant extensively markets, sells, and services the same product line there. But where the plaintiff’s injury occurs outside the forum, as in BMS, the relatedness requirement is not met.
No. BMS emphasizes that jurisdiction must be based on the defendant’s own suit-related forum contacts. A distributor’s or co-defendant’s forum presence does not establish specific jurisdiction over the manufacturer for out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims absent a theory (e.g., agency or alter ego) tying the manufacturer’s own forum conduct to the particular claims.
Plaintiffs can file in the defendant’s home state(s), where general jurisdiction exists, or in the state where each plaintiff’s injury occurred and seek coordinated proceedings (e.g., multidistrict litigation in federal court). They may also explore federal statutes authorizing nationwide service of process or Rule 4(k)(2) for federal claims, though BMS expressly left federal-jurisdiction questions open.
No. Purposeful availment remains necessary but not sufficient. BMS clarifies that even when a defendant purposefully avails itself of a forum, courts must still find that each claim arises out of or relates to those forum contacts. The decision tightens the relatedness component rather than the purposeful availment prong.
Bristol-Myers Squibb reasserts the constitutional limits on state judicial power by insisting on a claim-specific nexus between the forum and the defendant’s suit-related conduct. It rejects the idea that strong forum contacts or the efficiency of aggregating similar claims can replace the due process requirement that each claim arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum activities.
For practitioners and students, the case reshapes mass-tort and complex litigation strategy. Plaintiffs must anchor each claim to the forum state’s events or proceed in a defendant’s home forum, while defendants can leverage BMS to defeat jurisdiction over nonresident claims lacking a forum link. Subsequent decisions like Ford refine, but do not unsettle, BMS’s central message: relatedness is real and must be shown for each claim.