Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.

57 Citing briefs

  1. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF DEFENDANT CONOCOPHILLIPS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

    Filed April 19, 2018

    Without an “adequate link” “between the forum and the specific claims” asserted by plaintiff, a court may not exercise specific jurisdiction over an out- of-state defendant “even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; [and] even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation.” Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1780–81 (citation and alterations omitted). The “substantial connection” test is not satisfied by “attenuated” or “isolated” activities within the forum state.

  2. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed March 20, 2018

    The global effects caused by the global conduct of a variety of global actors, most not found in California, is not a “but-for” cause of an injury in Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 165 Filed 03/20/18 Page 12 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Points and Authorities Case No.: 3:17-cv-06011 California. In Bristol-Myers, the defendant owned no fewer than five research and laboratory facilities, employed over 400 workers, and sold the challenged drug in California, 137 S. Ct. at 1778, but that was not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction because there was no “substantial connection” between that conduct and the alleged injuries. Here, the in-forum conduct alleged by Plaintiff is far less substantial than in Bristol-Myers.

  3. Smith v. Kellogg Company et al

    RESPONSE to 31 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint

    Filed September 15, 2017

    Nevada does not, however, have any interest in claims related to residents of other states who worked in other states. See BMS, 137 S. Ct. at 1781 (“As noted, the nonresidents were not prescribed Case 2:17-cv-01914-APG-GWF Document 54 Filed 09/15/17 Page 7 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Plavix in California, did not purchase Plavix in California, did not ingest Plavix in California, and were not injured by Plavix in California.

  4. Abelard et al v. Clean Earth, Inc. et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion

    Filed September 14, 2018

    See id., at 931, n. 6, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (“[E]ven regularly occurring sales of a product in a State do not justify the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim unrelated to those sales”). 137 S. Ct. at 1781. Importantly, there is no dispute regarding the QE440 at issue, which was manufactured by Extec, sold to SMC, USA, sold to Advanced Equipment, and subsequently was sold to Clean Earth.

  5. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed April 19, 2018

    In other words, [the plaintiff] cannot satisfy the Ninth Circuit’s ‘but for’ test.” Id. at *3. Sullivan is in accord with the Supreme Court’s more recent holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., that BMS could not be subjected to specific jurisdiction in California for injury claims involving its drug Plavix, brought by patients who obtained Plavix through sources outside of Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 219 Filed 04/19/18 Page 19 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 15- BP P.L.C.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT Case No. 3:17-cv-06011-WHA; Case No. 3:17-cv-06012-WHA California. See 137 S. Ct. at 1778. Even though BMS sold almost 187 million Plavix pills in California, taking in more than $900 million, and employed 250 sales reps in California, the Court held that there was no “adequate link between the State and the nonresidents’ claims,” because the specific pills that injured the plaintiffs were not developed, made, labelled, packaged, or sold to them in California. Id. at 1778, 1781. To permit jurisdiction over these claims merely because BMS also sold Plavix to patients in California would, the Court explained, “resemble[] a loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction” that could not be squared with its precedents.

  6. Grant McKee v. Audible, Inc et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs Taylor Fisse and Bryan Rees

    Filed January 22, 2018

    Because there is no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over Audible, and because the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims do not arise from any California-based contacts or conduct of Audible, the Court should grant this motion and dismiss the Second Amended Complaint as to nonresident plaintiffs in its 1 As the dissent in Bristol-Myers noted, the Supreme Court in that case left open the issue of whether its opinion would apply to a class action in which a resident plaintiff (like Mr. McKee in this case) seeks to represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, not all of whom were injured there. See Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1789, n. 4. Audible intends to address this issue in connection with class certification briefing.

  7. Dana Gold et al v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12

    Filed July 10, 2017

    If general jurisdiction ultimately fails, the court may determine whether it has specific jurisdiction over the defendant. For a court to exercise specific jurisdiction, “the suit must aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1780 (citing to Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. at 754) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). In other words, 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 and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation.” I

  8. Kessler v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

    REPLY BRIEF in Support

    Filed September 5, 2018

    The putative class members Plaintiff seeks to represent admittedly have no connection to Wisconsin and could never bring their claims against Samsung, if any, here. Plaintiff cannot overcome Bristol-Myers’ requirement that “[w]hat is needed . . . is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.” Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1781 (emphasis added). That connection is absent in this case.

  9. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed April 19, 2018

    Due process permits courts to exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant—and hear any and all claims against that defend- ant—only when that defendant can be deemed “at home” in the forum state. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S. Ct. at 1780. But a defendant is “at home” in a forum only when it: (1) is incorporated in the forum; (2) has its principal place of business in that forum; or (3), in an “exceptional case,” has oper- ations that are “so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home” in the forum

  10. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed March 20, 2018

    The exercise of specific jurisdic- tion requires that a claim asserted by a plaintiff “aris[es] out of or relat[es] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S. Ct. at 1780 (quoting Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 754).