Few personal injury decisions have changed filing strategy as much as Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017). Years later, it still governs the first question in many multi-plaintiff pharmaceutical and device cases: can a nonresident plaintiff sue a nonresident defendant in this state court? For firms assembling cases across state lines, the answer determines venue, jury pool, and often the entire economics of the docket.
The Case and the Holding
Hundreds of plaintiffs, most of them not California residents, sued Bristol-Myers Squibb in California state court over injuries allegedly caused by the drug Plavix. The company was not incorporated in California and was not headquartered there. It did, however, sell the drug in the state, operated research facilities there, and employed thousands. The California Supreme Court found specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims using a sliding-scale approach: the more extensive the defendant's forum contacts, the less connected the claims needed to be.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. It held that specific jurisdiction requires an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally an activity or occurrence that takes place in the forum state. The nonresident plaintiffs did not buy Plavix in California, were not prescribed it there, did not ingest it there, and were not injured there. That the company sold the drug to other people in the state was not enough. The Court rejected the sliding scale and emphasized that a defendant's unconnected activities in a state do not support jurisdiction over claims arising elsewhere.
What the Decision Did Not Decide
Careful reading matters because defense briefs overstate the holding. The Court expressly left open whether the same limit applies to a federal court exercising jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment, and it did not address nationwide class actions. It also did not disturb general jurisdiction, which depends on a corporation being essentially at home in the forum, typically its place of incorporation or principal place of business. These doctrines interact in practical ways, and later cases have continued to refine how the pieces fit together, including consent-by-registration theories that some states recognize.
How Plaintiff Firms Structure Filings After BMS
- File in the defendant's home states. Delaware, New Jersey, and other states of incorporation or principal place of business support general jurisdiction, so the nonresident-plaintiff problem does not arise.
- Group plaintiffs by state of injury. Rather than a single mass action in a favorable venue, firms file in the state where each plaintiff was prescribed and treated, or in states where sufficient numbers justify a coordinated proceeding.
- Use federal MDL consolidation for pretrial work. MDL transfer under section 1407 does not alter personal-jurisdiction rules, but it centralizes discovery and Daubert practice. Remand to the transferor court follows for trial.
- Plead forum contacts that tie to the claim. Where the defendant designed, tested, or marketed the specific product at issue in the forum, plaintiffs can argue the claim arises out of or relates to those activities.
Each strategy has costs. Home-state filings may place plaintiffs in venues perceived as less favorable. State-by-state filings increase administrative burden and risk inconsistent rulings. Multi-state firms should model the expected value of each forum before committing, rather than defaulting to the most plaintiff-friendly venue and hoping jurisdiction holds.
Preserving the Issue and Timing the Fight
Personal-jurisdiction defenses can be waived. Defendants who answer without raising the objection, or who litigate extensively before moving, risk forfeiture under the rules of many states. Plaintiffs can use that to their benefit by identifying defendants who have already engaged on the merits. Conversely, plaintiffs facing a motion to dismiss should consider jurisdictional discovery targeted at the defendant's forum-specific conduct, rather than relying on general statements about sales volume.
Where a case includes both resident and nonresident plaintiffs, expect the defense to move for severance or dismissal of the nonresidents while leaving residents in place. Courts have granted this relief repeatedly. Plaintiffs should prepare alternative filings and tolling agreements in advance, since dismissals for lack of jurisdiction can collide with limitations periods. Savings statutes differ by state, so confirm that refiling in a second forum will be treated as timely before relying on one.
Settlement Implications
Jurisdictional risk feeds into settlement leverage. A defendant that expects to succeed in dismissing a large share of the claimants will price global resolution accordingly. Plaintiff counsel should document alternative forums, tolling arrangements, and the expected timeline for refiling, because those facts affect the discount a defendant applies. In inventory settlements, the risk also affects how the claims are tiered and which plaintiffs sit in higher-value categories.
For more on how forum and procedural decisions interact with recovery, see our case law and settlements category, and for product-based claims, our product liability coverage.
Takeaways
- BMS requires a forum connection to each plaintiff's own claim, not only to the defendant.
- The decision leaves open federal Fifth Amendment questions and nationwide class actions.
- Consider home-state, state-of-injury, and MDL structures, and calendar limitations for contingency refiling.
- Raise or test waiver arguments early, and use targeted jurisdictional discovery.