Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court for the County of San Francisco

Case Updates

The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which held that the petitioner “was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the California courts on the basis of specific jurisdiction.”

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief in a California Supreme Court case concerning whether California may exercise personal jurisdiction over claims by nonresident plaintiffs against a nonresident corporation based on conduct that occurred entirely outside the state. The California Court of Appeal found that the defendant corporation was not subject to general jurisdiction in California. The corporation’s principal place of business and state of incorporation were elsewhere; it, thus, could not be “fairly regarded as at home” in the state. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal held that it had personal jurisdiction over the corporation because California residents had asserted similar claims arising from California sales of the same product. In other words, the existence of claims by California plaintiffs that did arise from the corporation’s California contacts sufficed to confer specific jurisdiction over any claim in the country that involved the same product.

The Chamber urged the California Supreme Court to reject this view, arguing the court of appeal’s decision distorts the jurisprudence of specific jurisdiction in a way that significantly erodes the limits on general jurisdiction that the U.S. Supreme Court had reaffirmed in Daimler Corp. v. Bauman.

The Chamber filed this brief jointly with the California Chamber of Commerce and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Donald M. Falk of Mayer Brown served as counsel to the amici in with the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center in this case.

The Chamber filed an amicus letter with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in support of the petition for review. 

Donald M. Falk of Mayer Brown served as counsel to the amici in with the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center in this case.