The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, November 19, 2014. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, S221038—Review Granted—November 19, 2014
This case presents the following issues: (1) Did the plaintiffs in this action who are not residents of California establish specific personal jurisdiction so as to assert their claims against the nonresident pharmaceutical drug manufacturer? (2) Does general jurisdiction exist in light of Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. __ [134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624]?
In 2012, residents of several states brought several products liability actions against Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). They alleged defects in Plavix, a prescription drug BMS manufactures and sells in California and throughout the country. BMS filed a motion to quash service of summons, asserting that its California contacts were insufficient to support general personal jurisdiction because BMS was neither headquartered nor incorporated in California. The trial court found that California had general jurisdiction because, among other things, BMS conducted business in the state, operated five offices and employed about 160 people in the state, and operated multiple research facilities and laboratories in several cities throughout the state. The court declined to address whether California also had specific personal jurisdiction over BMS.
The First District Court of Appeal, Division Two, reversed in a published opinion, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 605. It held that California could not exercise general jurisdiction over BMS. Although BMS had extensive sales and research activities in California, BMS was not headquartered in California, did not maintain its principal place of business in California, and thus was not “essentially at home” in California. However, the court concluded that California had specific jurisdiction because BMS sold nearly $1 billion worth of Plavix in California, had five offices and facilities in California, employed California-based employees and sales representatives, caused both resident and non-resident plaintiffs the same alleged harm, and failed to establish that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable and in violation of Due Process under the Fourteenth amendment. [Full disclosure: Horvitz & Levy LLP is counsel of record for petitioner Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.]
Hollingsworth & Vose Company v. Superior Court, S221290—Review Granted & Held—November 19, 2014
The court ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, S221038 (see above), which presents the following issue: whether the standard for general personal jurisdiction set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, and Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S.Ct. 746, 749, limits the scope of general jurisdiction under California law.
The trial court denied Hollingsworth & Vose Company’s (H&V) motion to quash service of summons. It held H&V was subject to general jurisdiction in California because its California sales over the past five years (2009-2013) constituted approximately 6.5% of its total domestic sales; H&V maintains a registered agent in California, and is registered to do business in California; and until 2009, H&V had a sales office in California where a single employee worked as a sales agent. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, summarily denied H&V’s petition for writ of mandate. (Kudos to H&V’s counsel for securing a grant-and-hold with just ten days to prepare the petition.)
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
