Waiting for the Full Impact of 'Bristol-Myers' in NJ
The 'Bristol-Myers' case, which specifically addresses claims brought by out-of-state plaintiffs, opens the door to challenges to many nationwide class actions filed against non-resident defendants and potentially could have enormous consequences.
October 30, 2017 at 10:56 AM
9 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last term in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (June 19, 2017), concerning personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants has generated substantial buzz. But a survey of recent cases in the federal and state courts in New Jersey, both before and after the decision, reveals that Bristol-Myers did not substantially change the landscape for when out-of-state defendants — and corporate defendants in particular — can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in New Jersey, except where the plaintiffs also are non-residents.
There also does not appear to be a divergence between state and federal courts in New Jersey on the standard for specific personal jurisdiction, which is important for plaintiffs in deciding where to file a complaint and for defendants in deciding whether or not to remove a case to federal court. Nevertheless, Bristol-Myers, which specifically addressed claims brought by out-of-state plaintiffs, does open the door to challenges to many nationwide class actions filed against non-resident defendants, and that potentially could have enormous consequences.
The Supreme Court's recent personal jurisdiction jurisprudence — particularly relating to non-resident corporations — began three years ago in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014). Citing existing case law, the court clarified that a corporation has two “paradigm” forums for the purposes of general jurisdiction: (1) the state of incorporation; and (2) the principal place of business. Only in “an exceptional case” may “a corporation's operations in a forum other than its formal place of incorporation or principal place of business” be “so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.” Id. at 761, n.19. Most courts examining general personal jurisdiction since Daimler have observed that Daimler “circumscribed the view of general jurisdiction.” Dutch Run-Mays Draft v. Wolf Block, 450 N.J. Super. 590 (App. Div. 2017). Thus, after Daimler, it is difficult to obtain general jurisdiction over a defendant that is not incorporated in or does not have its principal place of business in the forum state.
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.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5First Lawsuit Filed Alleging Contraceptive Depo-Provera Caused Brain Tumor
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