New Jersey
Civil Justice Institute

  • Helpful Links
  • Contact Us
  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
    • Our Mission
    • Membership
    • Our Staff
  • ISSUES & ADVOCACY
  • OUR WORK IN THE COURTS
  • NEWSROOM
  • GET INVOLVED

Fairness. Justice.
Rule of Law.

What Does the Latest SCOTUS Ruling on Mass Actions Mean for New Jersey?

June 23, 2017News, Top StoriesClass Actions, New Jersey Courts, Pharmaceutical Litigation, SCOTUSNJCJI

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in a closely watched case concerning state based mass actions. The decision, which shuts down certain forms of forum shopping, might lead to more lawsuits being filed in New Jersey state courts because of our state’s plaintiff-friendly laws and the fact that many major businesses call New Jersey home.

 

The case, Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, involves a group of more than 600 plaintiffs, most of whom are not from California, who sued the pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb in California state court over the alleged ill-effects of the drug Plavix. The company successfully argued that it should not be haled into court in California by non-California plaintiffs who did not suffer any injury in the state of California because it does not do much more than sell its products there.

 

The United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (with Justice Alito writing for the majority, and Justice Sotomayor dissenting) that Bristol-Myers Squibb could not be sued by non-California residents in California just because they sold products in the state or because some of the plaintiffs did live in California.

 

“The mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California—and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the nonresidents—does not allow the state to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims,” wrote Alito. He added, “What is needed—and what is missing here—is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.”

 

We are pleased with this ruling because businesses should not be subject to jurisdiction anywhere their product might be sold, and this decision will encourage lower courts to step-up their gatekeeping role. However, New Jersey should brace for impact as plaintiffs shift their attention to our state courts, in which many businesses can be considered “at home,” and which are known for being friendly to plaintiffs thanks to our Rules of Evidence.

 

Additional analysis of this decision’s likely impact in New Jersey and elsewhere will be provided to NJCJI members in the coming weeks. If you would like to become a member of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute, please contact our President, Marcus Rayner.

 

Newsletter Sign Up




© 2022 NJCJI. All rights reserved.

Follow us on:

  • twitter
  • linkedin

TWITTER FEED TWITTER FEED

  • https://t.co/DlWbCRFBea, Jul 1
  • https://t.co/xl0stnCZfj NJCJI President Anthony Anastasio testified this week about the implications of NJ Senate… https://t.co/o55d5pA29b, Jun 24
  • https://t.co/x2z9vrW707 Thank you to @PPAGInc, @GenovaBurns, and @PBWTLaw for your support of the 2022 Spring Event!, Jun 21
  • Institute for Legal Reform Releases Update on Third-Party Litigation Funding https://t.co/UQDqeUQ712, Apr 15
  • The American Tort Reform Association issued a report about the National Association of Attorneys General. https://t.co/14sYVCKPrY, Apr 8

    QUICK CONTACT



    Please enter the code as shown below

    captcha

    New Jersey Civil Justice Institute | 112 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608 | office: (609) 218-6331 | info@civiljusticenj.org