Supreme Court Ruling Affects Where Product Liability Suits Can Be Filed

In June 2017, The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of CA, San Francisco County, et al., in an 8-1 ruling that California courts lack specific jurisdiction to entertain the non-residents’ claims. The case was a lawsuit that was brought by a group of plaintiffs, some of whom were California residents and some who were not.

They sued Bristol-Myers Squibb in CA court alleging that their blood thinner, Plavix, had damaged their health. Bristol-Myers Squibb’s corporate headquarters is in New York, they are incorporated in Delaware and they have business operations in New Jersey. It does not develop or create Plavix in California, nor manufacture, package or label the product in the state. California patients, however, can be prescribed Plavix. In this particular case, some plaintiffs from out of state joined up with California plaintiffs to sue Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The Supreme Court ruled that the out-of-state plaintiffs did not have standing in the case. Politico cited Justice Alito’s opinion: “The mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California — and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the non-residents — does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims.”

As a result, Bristol-Myers Squibb was successful in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to limit where a patient who has been harmed by a drug or any defective product can file a lawsuit.

The impact on mass actions and cases with multiple defendants

This ruling could have a long-lasting impact on how plaintiffs can seek justice. If out-of-state plaintiffs no longer have standing in these actions, they will have to file multiple lawsuits, either in the state where the company is based, or in the states where they live. Not only will this become costly, but it could tie up the court system for years, effectively eliminating the benefit of a mass action.

Furthermore, if more than one defendant is named, and each defendant is based in a different area, then one case could have multiple lawsuits attached to it. As Justice Sotomayor said in her lone dissenting opinion, “After this case, it is difficult to imagine where it might be possible to bring a nationwide mass action against two or more defendants headquartered and incorporated in different states.” Per Politico, “She also expressed concern about U.S. plaintiffs’ ability to sue companies not headquartered or incorporated anywhere in the U.S.”

There may be new challenges in state courts now, but that does not mean justice cannot or will not be served. McGowan, Hood, Felder & Phillips, LLC will continue to champion the rights of injury victims throughout the U.S., just as we always have.

If you were harmed by a defective drug or product, you want a team with the resources to handle complex litigation in state and federal courts. McGowan, Hood, Felder & Phillips, LLC, is here to rise to that challenge. To work with a skilled product liability lawyer, please call 803-327-7800 or complete our contact form now.