Print:Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

[sohanuzzaman56]

In Bristol Myers, a group of mostly non-Californian plaintiffs injured throughout the country brought a products liability action in California state court against a pharmaceutical manufacturer that was not subject to general jurisdiction in California. The defendant challenged the state court’s jurisdiction over it, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. Sustaining the defendant’s challenge, the Supreme Court held that the “primary focus of our personal jurisdiction inquiry is the defendant’s relationship to the forum State,” and for specific personal jurisdiction, “the suit must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.”

The Court’s decision in Garvey applies the same logic. Indeed, the Court held that to exercise specific jurisdiction, “the injury of the non-Illinois plaintiffs must arise out of or relate to the defendants’ contacts advertising data with Illinois.” There was no alleged harm to non-Illinois class members arising from the defendants’ contacts with Illinois, and thus the Court did not have jurisdiction with respect to claims asserted on their behalf. As a result, the non-Illinois residents were struck from the putative class.

Bristol Myers was not decided in the context of a Rule 23 class action, but TCPA class actions like Garvey have been on the frontlines of extending the Supreme Court’s decision. Favorable decisions like Garvey are important for out-of-state defendants – not just in the TCPA context – because they limit plaintiffs’ ability to forum shop for a favorable venue to bring nationwide class action lawsuits. Instead, under Bristol Myers, plaintiffs are arguably either limited to a state-specific class or required to file suit in the defendant’s home forum.

Stay tuned to the Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor blog for continued updates on this topic and much more.

Photo of Carter Nichols
Carter Nichols
Carter is an associate in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice. His practice focuses on consumer protection statutes and complex litigation, including claims arising under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Protection Act (FDCPA), and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).