In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), holding the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a state court from adjudicating nonresident plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Since then, various federal courts have considered whether that ruling extends to prevent a federal court from adjudicating claims brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by individuals who live and work outside the court’s jurisdiction—and courts have come to vastly different conclusions. Savvy plaintiffs-side attorneys are leveraging this split to avoid bringing their FLSA collective action where the employer is located if that jurisdiction is deemed unfavorable, and instead identifying a putative plaintiff located in a “friendlier” jurisdiction that allows anyone with similar claims to opt-in, regardless of where they live or work.

The 'BMS' Case


In 2012, a group of nearly 700 plaintiffs—a vast majority of which resided outside California—filed eight separate complaints against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., a large pharmaceutical company, in California Superior Court, alleging that a drug manufactured and sold by the company called Plavix had damaged their health. The complaints all asserted claims under multiple California laws, although the nonresident plaintiffs did not allege their individual claims had any ties to the State, including no allegation that they obtained Plavix through any California source, were injured by Plavix in California, or were treated for their injuries in California.