Ending the Trial Bar’s Road Trips A pair of Supreme Court cases could rein in abusive forum shopping.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ending-the-trial-bars-road-trips-1493075974
Plaintiffs lawyers have a business model built around litigation tourism, suing in state courts known for friendly verdicts and big jury awards. The Supreme Court hears a pair of cases Tuesday that could upend this violation of federalism and due process.
In Bristol Meyers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, the Justices will consider whether some 600 plaintiffs who live outside California can sue the New York-based company in the Golden State by joining 86 local plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who allege injuries related to the drug Plavix, sued in California because of its plaintiff-friendly reputation. (The other case, BNSF Railway v. Tyrell, concerns a similar play in Montana.)
The Constitution’s Due Process Clause says no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” which protects defendants from being dragged into courts for improper claims. In Tuesday’s cases the claims filed have no connection to the state court exercising jurisdiction, a practice the High Court has already rejected.
In 2014 the Justices ruled in Daimler v. Bauman that for a court to have jurisdiction a lawsuit must be filed where a company is headquartered or uses as its main place of business. The same year in Walden v. Fiore, the Court held unanimously that “[f]or a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.”
Yet the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in 2016 that California courts had jurisdiction over the Plavix lawsuits though the alleged injuries didn’t occur there, the company isn’t incorporated there and Plavix isn’t made there. The California judges, in willful disregard of the U.S. Supreme Court, said the state had jurisdiction because the company did a lot of business there. By that standard nearly any business could sue in California.
Justice Kathryn Werdegar noted in dissent that allowing a lawsuit with such a tenuous connection to the state “threatens to subject companies to the jurisdiction of California courts to an extent unpredictable from their business activities in California” and extends jurisdiction over liability claims “well beyond our state’s legitimate regulatory interest.” This violates a basic tenet of federalism. Justice Werdegar offers the High Court a road map to enforce its precedents and rein in the trial bar.
Comments are closed.
