Bristol-Myers Squibb: The Aftermath

Morrison & Foerster LLP
Contact

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”). Mass tort defendants have wasted little time in moving to dispose of claims from nonresident plaintiffs under this ruling.

In Case You Missed It: BMS in a Nutshell -

As previously reported, on June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court decided a longawaited specific jurisdiction question in favor of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. This case arose when a group of consumers — consisting of 86 California residents and 592 residents from 33 other states — brought tort claims in California state court, alleging injuries from using Plavix, a prescription drug that thins blood and inhibits blood clotting.

Originally published in Law360 on August 3, 2017.

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Morrison & Foerster LLP
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Morrison & Foerster LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide