Dissent in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California
582 U.S. 255 (2017) (2017) · Supreme Court of the United States
Bristol-Myers Squibb tightened the requirements for specific jurisdiction by holding that there must be an affiliation between the forum and the specific claims at issue. The case held that nonresident plaintiffs could not join their claims with resident plaintiffs' claims in a state court that lacked an adequate connection between the forum and the nonresidents' specific claims.
What was the dissent in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California?
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that BMS's extensive activities in California, combined with its nationwide marketing of Plavix, created sufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction. She warned that the decision would impede the efficient resolution of mass tort litigation by preventing plaintiffs from consolidating their claims in a single forum.
Source: Read Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California on Google Scholar
Case Overview
Facts
Over 600 plaintiffs from California and 33 other states filed suit against Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in California state court, alleging that the blood-thinning drug Plavix had damaged their health. BMS was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York. It maintained substantial operations in California, including a research facility, hundreds of employees, and significant sales revenue, but the nonresident plaintiffs did not obtain Plavix through California, were not prescribed the drug there, and did not suffer their injuries there.
Majority Holding
The Supreme Court held that California courts lacked specific jurisdiction over BMS with respect to the nonresident plaintiffs' claims. Specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. The nonresidents' claims did not arise out of or relate to BMS's contacts with California, and the mere fact that other plaintiffs had similar California-based claims did not establish jurisdiction over the nonresidents' unrelated claims.
Majority Reasoning
Justice Alito's majority opinion rejected the California Supreme Court's sliding scale approach, under which the more extensive the defendant's forum contacts, the weaker the required connection between the claims and the forum. The Court held that specific jurisdiction requires a direct connection between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's particular claims. BMS's general research and sales activities in California did not give rise to the nonresidents' claims; those plaintiffs obtained and used Plavix in other states. The Court emphasized that allowing jurisdiction would make any large corporation subject to suit anywhere it does business, even for claims entirely unconnected to the forum.
The Dissenting Opinion
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that BMS's extensive activities in California, combined with its nationwide marketing of Plavix, created sufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction. She warned that the decision would impede the efficient resolution of mass tort litigation by preventing plaintiffs from consolidating their claims in a single forum.
Key Quotes
“In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.”
“What is needed—and what is missing here—is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.”
“The mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California—and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the nonresidents—does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims.”
Impact and Legacy
Bristol-Myers Squibb significantly affected mass tort litigation strategy by preventing nonresident plaintiffs from joining their claims with resident plaintiffs in state courts lacking a connection to the nonresidents' claims. The decision accelerated the movement of mass tort cases to federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) and raised unresolved questions about whether the same rule applies in federal court. The case reinforced the trend toward narrowing personal jurisdiction that began with Daimler.
Exam Relevance
Bristol-Myers Squibb is frequently tested in civil procedure exams involving specific jurisdiction and mass tort litigation. Students may be asked to analyze whether a court has specific jurisdiction over claims brought by nonresident plaintiffs and to evaluate the impact on litigation strategy. The case also appears in questions about the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction.
Study Tips
- Focus on the requirement that the plaintiff's specific claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum — general business contacts are insufficient for specific jurisdiction.
- Understand how Bristol-Myers Squibb relates to Daimler: together they limit both general and specific jurisdiction over large corporations.
- Consider the open question of whether Bristol-Myers Squibb applies in federal court, particularly in MDL proceedings.
- Be prepared to discuss the practical impact on mass tort litigation and why plaintiffs now increasingly file in federal court.
Read the Full Case Analysis
View the complete brief for Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California including full reasoning, doctrine, and study resources.
More Civil Procedure Dissents
Pennoyer v. Neff
95 U.S. 714 (1878) (1878)
Justice Hunt dissented, arguing that the Oregon statute authorizing service by publication was a valid exercise of state legislative power and that the procedure followed was sufficient to confer jurisdiction over nonresidents with property in the state.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) (1980)
Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that the majority's approach was too restrictive and that the defendants placed their products into the stream of commerce knowing they might reach any state. He contended that when a product causes injury in a forum state, the interests of the state and the injured plaintiff should weigh heavily in the jurisdictional analysis.
Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) (2014)
Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's 'at home' test. She argued that the majority's approach was too restrictive and that the Court should have resolved the case by holding that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, rather than by narrowing the general jurisdiction test itself.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
592 U.S. 351 (2021) (2021)
Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment but wrote separately, joined by Justice Thomas, questioning the majority's reliance on the 'relate to' language. He argued that the majority's approach was vague and suggested that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment might support a broader basis for jurisdiction. Justice Barrett took no part in the decision.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) (1938)
Justice Butler dissented, joined by Justice McReynolds, arguing that the question of overruling Swift had not been briefed or argued by the parties and that the doctrine of stare decisis counseled against overturning nearly a century of precedent without full adversarial consideration.
Hanna v. Plumer
380 U.S. 460 (1965) (1965)
Justice Harlan concurred in the result but wrote separately to argue that the majority's analysis was too permissive. He believed the test should focus on whether the choice between the federal and state rule would substantially affect the primary decisions of parties — i.e., whether the federal rule would affect behavior outside the courtroom.