Bristol-myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Ca.
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 19, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 19, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. More than 600 plaintiffs, most of whom are not California residents, filed this civil action in a California state court against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS), asserting a variety of state-law claims based on injuries allegedly caused by a BMS drug called Plavix. The California Supreme Court held that the California courts have specific jurisdiction to entertain the nonresidents' claims. We now reverse. I A BMS, a large pharmaceutical company, is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, and it maintains substantial operations in both New York and New Jersey. 1 Cal.5th 783, 790, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 377 P.3d 874, 879 (2016). Over 50 percent of BMS's work force in the United States is employed in those two States. Ibid. BMS also engages in business activities in other jurisdictions, including California. Five of the company's research and laboratory facilities, which employ a total of around 160 employees, are located there. Ibid. BMS also employs about 250 sales representatives in California and maintains a small state-government advocacy office in Sacramento. Ibid. One of the pharmaceuticals that BMS manufactures and sells is Plavix, a prescription drug that thins the blood and inhibits blood clotting. BMS did not develop Plavix in California, did not create a marketing strategy for Plavix in California,…
Excerpt of a 22,583-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.