In 2017, the United States Supreme Court held in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS) that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a California state court over the claims of non-California plaintiffs did not comport with due process because the court lacked personal jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims against the defendant.

More specifically, the BMS court, after observing that the defendant was not subject to general jurisdiction in California, held that the California court did not have specific jurisdiction over the claims of the non-California plaintiffs “even when third parties (here, the plaintiffs who reside in California) can bring claims similar to those brought by the nonresidents.”

BMS Presents Broader Issue

Petrina Hall McDaniel is the managing partner for Squire Patton Boggs’’ Atlanta office. Courtesy photo

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]