Master U.S. Supreme Court limits state courts' specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs' claims in mass-tort actions absent a forum-linked connection. with this comprehensive case brief.
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court is a cornerstone of modern personal jurisdiction doctrine, particularly for mass-tort and multi-plaintiff litigation. Building on Goodyear, Daimler, and Walden, the Court tightened the due process limits on states' exercise of specific (case-linked) jurisdiction by insisting that each plaintiff's claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. The decision repudiates the "sliding scale" approach used by some courts, which had allowed extensive forum contacts to compensate for a weaker connection between those contacts and particular nonresident plaintiffs' claims.
For litigators and students, the case significantly curbs "litigation tourism," making it harder to aggregate claims in plaintiff-friendly forums when nonresident plaintiffs' injuries and conduct giving rise to those injuries occurred elsewhere. The decision also underscores federalism and due process values: defendants should not be haled into a state court to answer for claims lacking a forum-specific nexus, even when they engage in extensive nationwide business. At the same time, Bristol-Myers leaves open questions about federal courts' jurisdiction under nationwide service statutes and the treatment of absent class members in Rule 23 class actions.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York. It develops and markets pharmaceuticals nationwide, including Plavix. BMS maintained research and laboratory facilities and a substantial sales force in California and contracted with McKesson Corporation, a California-based distributor, to distribute Plavix nationally. A coordinated mass action was filed in California state court involving 678 plaintiffs—86 California residents and 592 residents of other states—alleging injuries from Plavix based on strict products liability, negligence, and misrepresentation theories. The nonresident plaintiffs did not allege that they purchased, ingested, were prescribed, or were injured by Plavix in California; nor did they receive treatment in California. The California trial court exercised specific personal jurisdiction over BMS as to all plaintiffs, applying a "sliding scale" theory that BMS's extensive forum contacts and the similarity of the nonresidents' claims to those of California residents sufficed. The California Supreme Court largely affirmed. BMS petitioned for certiorari, arguing that California's exercise of specific jurisdiction over nonresidents' claims violated the Due Process Clause.
May a state court exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporate defendant for claims by nonresident plaintiffs when those plaintiffs' claims do not arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum state?
Specific (case-linked) 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 therefore subject to the state's regulation. The relationship must be based on contacts that the defendant itself creates with the forum; the defendant's relationship with a third party (or similarity of claims by resident plaintiffs) cannot supply the necessary connection. General (all-purpose) jurisdiction exists only where the defendant is "at home" (typically its place of incorporation and principal place of business). See Goodyear, Daimler, and Walden.
No. California courts lacked specific personal jurisdiction over BMS with respect to the nonresident plaintiffs' claims because those claims did not arise out of or relate to BMS's contacts with California. The California Supreme Court's "sliding scale" approach violated due process.
1) General vs. specific jurisdiction: The Court first confirmed that California lacked general jurisdiction over BMS because it is neither incorporated nor headquartered in California, and its in-state activities, though substantial, did not render it "at home" there under Daimler. 2) Specific jurisdiction's required nexus: Due process demands a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. The nonresident plaintiffs did not purchase, ingest, or suffer injury from Plavix in California, and BMS's California activities (marketing, research facilities, and a distribution agreement with McKesson) did not give rise to or relate to those nonresidents' injuries. Walden requires defendant-focused contacts with the forum; the mere fact that BMS conducts significant business in California is insufficient absent a claim-specific tie. 3) Rejection of the "sliding scale": California's approach—permitting weaker relatedness when a defendant has extensive forum contacts—conflicts with the constitutional requirement that each plaintiff's claim be linked to the defendant's forum conduct. Similar claims by in-state plaintiffs cannot bootstrap jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs' claims, and jurisdiction must be assessed defendant-by-defendant and claim-by-claim. 4) Third-party and distributor contacts: BMS's contract with McKesson, a California distributor, did not create specific jurisdiction for the nonresidents' claims. A defendant's relationship with a third party cannot be the basis for specific jurisdiction unless it forges the requisite link between the forum, the defendant, and the particular claims; here, the nonresidents' claims did not depend on any California-based distribution or conduct. 5) Federalism and fairness: Exercising jurisdiction without a forum-linked connection would upset the federal balance and offend due process fairness by forcing a defendant to litigate claims in a forum with no connection to those claims. Plaintiffs could sue in BMS's home states or in states where they were prescribed, purchased, used, or were injured by Plavix, preserving adequate alternative fora. The Court expressly reserved whether the Fifth Amendment might permit a different result in federal court under statutes authorizing nationwide service of process and did not address Rule 23 class actions. Justice Sotomayor dissented, asserting that BMS's nationwide marketing and distribution strategy, including in California, bore a substantial connection to all plaintiffs' claims and cautioning that the majority's approach needlessly impedes mass-tort aggregation.
Bristol-Myers Squibb is pivotal for civil procedure and products-liability practice. It tightens the specific-jurisdiction inquiry by insisting on a plaintiff- and claim-specific connection to the defendant's forum conduct, foreclosing state-court mass actions that bundle nonresident claims lacking a forum nexus. The decision curbs forum shopping and reinforces the limits on state adjudicatory authority announced in Goodyear, Daimler, and Walden. For law students, it is essential for understanding the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction, the defendant-focused nature of the due process analysis, and the practical consequences for litigation strategy in mass torts, class actions, and MDLs. The case also sets the stage for Ford Motor Co. v. Montana (2021), which clarifies that "relate to" does not demand strict but-for causation, while still requiring a meaningful forum connection—something absent in BMS.
General jurisdiction allows a court to hear any claim against a defendant where the defendant is "at home" (usually its place of incorporation and principal place of business). Specific jurisdiction is claim-linked: the suit must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. BMS reiterates that extensive business in a state does not create general jurisdiction and that, for specific jurisdiction, each plaintiff's claim must have a forum-linked connection to the defendant's conduct.
Because it diluted the required nexus between the forum and the specific claims. The sliding scale allowed extensive forum contacts to compensate for weak relatedness. Due process, however, demands that the defendant's forum contacts be connected to the particular claims asserted. Similar claims by in-state plaintiffs or extensive in-state business cannot bootstrap jurisdiction over nonresidents' unrelated claims.
Nonresident plaintiffs generally must sue in (a) the defendant's home states (place of incorporation or principal place of business), or (b) a state where their own claims arose—e.g., where they were prescribed, purchased, used, treated for, or injured by the product—so that their claims arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum conduct. BMS prevents suing in a third state with no claim-specific nexus merely because the defendant does substantial business there.
No. Personal jurisdiction is assessed defendant-by-defendant and claim-by-claim. A defendant's relationship with a third party (such as a forum-state distributor) does not itself create specific jurisdiction unless it forges the necessary connection among the defendant, the forum, and the specific claims at issue. In BMS, the McKesson relationship did not link the nonresidents' claims to California.
The Court expressly left those questions open. Many courts have extended BMS to state-court nationwide class actions. Federal courts are divided on whether BMS constrains Rule 23 class actions when the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction in the forum; the Supreme Court has not resolved that split. Separately, some federal statutes authorize nationwide service of process, raising a different Fifth Amendment analysis that BMS did not decide.
Bristol-Myers Squibb reshaped the landscape of personal jurisdiction by insisting that each plaintiff's claim must be anchored to the defendant's forum conduct. It rejects jurisdictional theories that rely on the breadth of a defendant's nationwide business or the presence of similar resident-plaintiff claims, reinforcing due process limits rooted in fairness and federalism.
For practitioners and students, the case is a cautionary guide to forum selection and claim aggregation. It channels mass-tort filings toward defendants' home states or the states where individual claims arose, and it spurred ongoing debates about the reach of specific jurisdiction in federal class actions and the contours of "relate to," later clarified in Ford. Understanding BMS is essential to mastering modern jurisdictional strategy and doctrine.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →