SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Conflict of Laws Keyed to Brilmayer
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court
Citation:
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)Facts
Defendant, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”), is a pharmaceutical company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York. BMS maintains substantial operations in New York and New Jersey. BMS also has five research and laboratory facilities and 160 employees located in California. It employs about 250 sales representatives in California and maintains a state-government advocacy office in Sacramento. BMS manufactures and sells Plavix, a prescription drug that thins the blood and inhibits blood clotting. It did not develop Plavix in California, did not create marketing strategy for Plavix in California, and did not manufacture, label, package, or work on the regulatory approval of the product in California. BMS did all of those activities in either New York or New Jersey. However, BMS does sell Plavix in California. Between 2006 and 2012, BMS sold nearly 187 millions Plavix pills in California and made over $900 million in those sales. This amounts to 1% of BMS’s nationwide sales revenue.
Plaintiffs, 86 California residents and 592 residents from 33 other states, filed eight separate complaints in California Superior Court, alleging that Plavix had damaged their health. All of the complaints asserted 13 claims under California law, including products liability, negligent misrepresentation, and misleading advertising claims. The non-California residents did not allege that they obtained the drug through California physicians or from any other California source, nor did they claims. that they were injured by Plavix or treated for their injuries in California.
BMS moved to quash service of summons on the non-residents’ claims, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction. The California Superior Court denied BMS’s motion, finding that California courts had general jurisdiction over BMS because the company engages in extensive activities in California. BMS appealed to the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, which was denied. The California Supreme Court instructed the appellate court to vacate its order denying mandate and issue an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. The Court of Appeal changed its decision on the question of general jurisdiction, holding that general jurisdiction was lacking. However, the appellate court held that it had specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims. The California Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted BMS’s petition for certiorari.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.
Topic Resources
Topic Outline
Jurisdiction of Courts