Can Courts Exercise Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Class Members?
It is only a matter of time before the issue becomes ripe for Supreme Court review. Until then, counsel on both sides of the class action bar will have to carefully follow developments as they consider where to litigate their cases.
July 24, 2020 at 12:46 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The federal courts have been grappling recently with a thorny question of major significance to the class action bar: Can courts exercise personal jurisdiction over claims brought by unnamed, out-of-state class members? The answer impacts access to justice as well as the costs of litigation.
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, which involved a California "mass tort" action against an out-of-state defendant. The court held that the state court could not exercise jurisdiction over claims brought by out-of-state plaintiffs for injuries that occurred out of state. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, warning that "[t]he majority's rule will make it difficult to aggregate the claims of plaintiffs across the country whose claims may be worth little alone," and that the decision "will result in piecemeal litigation and the bifurcation of claims." Class actions are designed to alleviate such problems, and the court limited its holding to state "mass actions," reserving the question of whether its ruling would apply to federal class actions as well. Since then, lower courts have been filling in the blanks.
The courts have not been unanimous. In decisions issued over the last three years, federal judges in districts across the country, including in Colorado, Washington, Maryland and Florida, have all declined to extend Bristol-Myers to class actions, exercising jurisdiction in cases involving out-of-state plaintiffs alleging out-of-state injuries. Those rulings emphasized the court's narrow holding, observed that absent class members are not formally parties to the lawsuit, and contended that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure accords defendants adequate due process protections. Meanwhile, many cases out of the Northern District of Illinois extended Bristol-Myers to federal class actions, reasoning that the court's logic compels that result. A 2017 order from the District of Arizona also stated that Bristol-Myers applies to class actions, albeit in a terse footnote with no analysis. The split has trickled into other areas of complex litigation as well. Some courts have had to confront whether Bristol-Myers applies to the "collective action" procedure under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (The Southern District of Texas said no in 2018; the Eastern District of Missouri said yes in 2020.)
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLess Is More: The Risks of Excessive Data Collection from Mobile Devices
6 minute readHow My Postpartum Depression Led to Launching My Firm’s Parental Leave Coaching Program
9 minute readProtecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1On the Move and After Hours: Riker Danzig; Goldberg Segalla; Rawle & Henderson; Laddey Clark; Volunteer Lawyers for Justice
- 2Waiving a Liability Insurer’s Right to Subrogation—Is It Appropriate?
- 3Judge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement—With Conditions
- 4DC Circuit Upholds Law Forcing Sale or Ban of TikTok in the US
- 5Adapting for Success: Strategic Insights for Law Firms in 2025 and Beyond
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250