Divide and Conquer: Plaintiffs Need a Single Forum that Accommodates the Realities of Contemporary Economic Activity

The growth of mass tort litigation tracks with industries’ shift to mass marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical and consumer products on a national scale.

Contemporary Economic Activity

David A. Mazie and David M. Estes

August 15, 2017 01:37 PM

The mass marketing and distribution of products on a national scale permits businesses to maximize efficiencies, benefit from economies of scale, and leverage recent technological advances. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS)[i] makes clear that, while 21stcentury economic activity often transcends state and even national boundaries, litigation arising out of harm caused by such products remains hemmed in by 20thcentury jurisdictional barriers. Going forward, attorneys involved in mass tort litigation with interstate parties must reassess where to file and how to structure such claims in light of BMS.

The growth of mass tort litigation tracks with industries’ shift to mass marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical and consumer products on a national scale.[ii] The movement and sale of products frequently transcends state boundaries. Faced with this economic reality, some state courts determined that, when adjudicating mass tort claims filed by state residents, the state also had jurisdiction over near-identical claims of nonresident plaintiffs arising from a common product and conduct of a defendant—and in doing so sought to avoid piecemeal litigation, decrease inconsistent outcomes, and conserve judicial resources.

However, the nation’s highest court has repudiated this “relaxed” approach to mass tort jurisdiction.[iii] In BMS, the state court found specific jurisdiction where “the nonresidents [plaintiffs] were not prescribed Plavix in California, did not purchase Plavix in California, did not ingest Plavix in California, and were not injured by Plavix in California.”[iv] The Supreme Court reversed, holding that even in the mass tort context, each plaintiff must show her or his suit is related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.

[T]he suit must aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum … [T]here must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State… The mere fact that other plaintiffs [in the mass tort litigation] were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California—and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the nonresidents—does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims (emphasis by court).[v]

In short, the BMS court instructs that when a group of individuals from various states desire to obtain the benefits of aggregating their claims in state mass tort litigation, they must file in a forum that has general jurisdiction over the defendant to avoid jurisdictional pitfalls. And the court recently narrowed general jurisdiction to forums where a defendant was incorporated or its principal place of business.[vi] Consequently, future mass torts are likely to be filed in states where certain industries have concentrated. For example, New Jersey is likely to see an increase in personal injury lawsuits related to pharmaceutical products because a dozen pharmaceutical manufacturers maintain their principal places of business in the state.[vii]

However, filing mass torts in a defendant manufacturer’s “home” forum does not resolve the problems posed by the interstate character of contemporary product liability litigation. As noted in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent,[viii] when a mass tort is filed in a manufacturer’s home forum, that forum is likely to lack personal jurisdiction over additional important defendants located in other states. For example, in a failure-to-warn case, the prescribing physician is an essential witness, with respect to the learned intermediary doctrine, and many plaintiffs desire to bring claims against the prescribing physician for malpractice or lack of informed consent. The inability to join important codefendants to mass torts in the manufacturer’s home forum may deny a plaintiff access to important evidence and leaves him or her vulnerable to other defenses, such as the “empty chair” defense or the entire controversy doctrine.

Of course, BMS does not prevent intrastate plaintiffs from filing a consolidated action in their home forum and suing all defendants in a single action. However, this option is only viable for individual plaintiffs located in a state where there are a sufficient quantity of injured plaintiffs banding together to justify the transactional costs of an intrastate mass tort. In forums where there are relatively few injured plaintiffs or insufficient damages because of the significant litigation costs of product liability cases, some plaintiffs will find it difficult to obtain legal representation and access to courts. Additionally, filing a mass tort in plaintiffs’ home forums against a foreign defendant often results in removal to federal court and then transfer to distant forums, pursuant to the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) program. The MDL transfer and consolidated pretrial litigation process is lengthy and costly, and the volume of claims in the MDL delays resolution of claims that otherwise could be settled, and so is not a panacea for many individuals injured by a product.

In short, the court in BMS makes clear that state mass torts cannot “relax” jurisdictional requirements to address litigation arising from a defendant’s nationwide course of conduct, but it does not provide a concrete roadmap that permits plaintiffs from various states to band together in a state forum and obtain the equalizing benefits of litigating on an aggregated basis.[ix]

At the same time, the predicted demise of state mass torts post-BMS may be exaggerated. While the BMS court regarded the contacts in that case to be too “attenuated” or “loose,” it declined the invitation to impose a rigid requirement that “in-state conduct must actually cause a plaintiff's claim.”[x] Without such a rigid requirement, a district court recently distinguished BMS and held that California had jurisdiction because the nonresident plaintiff alleged some “in-state clinical trial activity” and a nexus between the defendants’ clinical activity and her injuries.[xi] In the Philadelphia pelvic mesh litigation, the nonresident plaintiffs have argued that, despite BMS, the nonresident manufacturers waived personal jurisdiction by registering to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These examples demonstrate that the door may still be ajar for state courts that assert specific jurisdiction in mass torts involving nonresident plaintiffs.

It is also unclear whether an in-state defendant can serve as an “anchor defendant,” creating sufficient contacts with a forum state. In BMS, the plaintiffs sued a Californian distributor and relied on the in-state defendant as a jurisdictional hook. But the court held that the “bare fact that [the nonresident manufacturer] contracted with a [resident] distributor is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction in the State.”[xii] The court’s phrasing leaves open for future cases whether a tighter nexus between an out-of-state manufacturer and in-state defendant may provide sufficiently direct contacts to surmount the requirements of BMS. Thus, attorneys contemplating state mass torts with nonresident plaintiffs must devote more pre-suit investigation and discovery to uncovering jurisdictional facts that surmount the facts in BMS and penetrate the relationships between foreign and local defendants that collaborate in the mass marketing, production, and distribution of products on a national scale.

In sum, while economic borders grow ever more porous in a globalizing economy, our current jurisdictional framework has not kept pace. BMS fits within the court’s line of recent decisions circumscribing state courts’ jurisdiction over nonresident corporations.[xiii] However, the ultimate reach of BMS’ holding is unclear as the court did not impose a rigid rule requiring direct causation from in-state conduct. Consequently, there may yet be space for state forums to respond to the reality on ground and fashion litigation that provides plaintiffs from various states with common claims the ability to consolidate and litigate against all defendants in a single forum of their choice.


[i] Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cali., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017).

[ii] 137 S. Ct. at 1789 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

[iii] 137 S. Ct. at 1778–79.

[iv] 137 S. Ct. at 1781 (citation omitted).

[v] 137 S. Ct. at 1780–81 (emphasis by Court) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

[vi] 137 S. Ct. at 1783; see Daimler AG v. Bauman, et al., 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014).

[vii] See Toutant, NJ, 'World's Medicine Chest,' May See More Pharma Litigation After 'Bristol-Myers', N.J.L.J. (June 22, 2017).

[viii] 137 S. Ct. at 1789 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

[ix] The Court left “open the question whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court,” 137 S. Ct. at 1783–84, suggesting that the Court may believe the solution must lie in federal forum based on so-called “national” jurisdiction. See also Tr. Oral Argument 17:4–19:21, 28:1–29:14 (Justices Breyer and Ginsburg colloquy regarding whether Congress may and needs to take action to create a “national” forum.)

[x] 137 S. Ct. at 1789 ((Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

[xi] Cortina v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 17-CV-00247, 2017 WL 2793808, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2017).

[xii] 137 S. Ct. at 1783 (citations omitted).

[xiii] E.g., BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405, 581 U.S. (2017); Daimler, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014).


David Mazie is a trial lawyer specializing in complex torts, commercial litigation, and personal injury. He is a senior partner in Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in New Jersey, a firm experienced in New Jersey mass tort litigation. Mr. Mazie is the holder of the two highest personal injury verdicts in New Jersey history. Please visit for a full profile.

David Estes is an associate at the firm, specializing in complex torts, personal injury, and health care law. He has been selected for the “Rising Star” distinction in the 2014-–17 editions of New Jersey’s Super Lawyers.

Related Articles

Will the Bristol-Myers Decision of Personal Jurisdiction Further Consolidate Litigation in MDLs?

by Jeffrey Travers and Michael J. Miller

We were able to obtain a verdict for Mr. Cooper within a year of opting for the state courts.

Bristol-Myers MDLs

The Parade of Horribles

by Amy Gunn

Lawsuits about a blood-thinning drug that prevents platelets from clumping together now prevents plaintiffs from joining together to bring state law claims against a corporation when not every plaintiff was harmed in that state.

Bristol-Myers Squibb v Superior Court of CA

Supreme Court further Restricts Where Plaintiffs Can Sue in Mass Torts

by Gregory Bubalo and Katherine A. Dunnington

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California will significantly impact the plaintiffs’ choices of forums for the filing of mass torts actions.

Plaintiffs No Longer Sue in Mass Torts

Supreme Court Slams Door on Out-of-State Plaintiffs’ Suits

by Dona Szak

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, multiple plaintiffs sued Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) in a California state court to recover damages allegedly caused by their use of BMS’ anti-clotting drug, Plavix.

Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Suits

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco

by Clifford J. Zatz and Josh Thomas Foust

The decision “may make it impossible to bring certain mass actions at all.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Mass Tort

Russia's Evolving Legal Environment and the Next Economic Upswing

by Andrey Goltsblat

Russia's Legal Environment

Trending Articles

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2023

by Best Lawyers

The third edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America™ highlights the legal talent of lawyers who have been in practice less than 10 years.

Three arrows made of lines and dots on blue background

The Best Lawyers in New Zealand™ 2024 Awards

by Best Lawyers

The Best Lawyers in New Zealand 2024 awards include an elite field of top lawyers and law firms.

Auckland, New Zealand Skyline at twilight

Presenting The Best Lawyers in Singapore™ 2024

by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers offers the most prestigious awards for lawyers and law firms in Singapore for 2024.

Singapore skyline at night

Announcing the 2023 The Best Lawyers in America Honorees

by Best Lawyers

Only the top 5.3% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 29th edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

Gold strings and dots connecting to form US map

The Best Lawyers in Australia™ 2024 Launch

by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is excited to announce The Best Lawyers in Australia™ for 2023, including the top lawyers and law firms from Australia.

Australian Parliament beside water at sunset

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Japan™ 2024

by Best Lawyers

We are proud to present the 2024 edition of Best Lawyers awards for Japan which include the top lawyers and law firms in the country.

Mt. Fuji in the background with fall leaves and structure in front


Paulson & Nace, PLLC: A Pioneer in Personal Injury Law

by Best Lawyers

Since its inception more than 40 years ago, Paulson & Nace, PLLC, a Washington D.C., Maryland and West Virginia-based personal injury firm, has always led with compassion first. Here are some key insights from the firm on how to go about filing a personal injury claim.

Group of lawyers meet around a conference table

The Best Lawyers in South Africa™ 2023

by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers proudly announces lawyers recognized in South Africa for 2023.

South African flag


Salvi & Maher, LLP: Illinois and Wisconsin's Personal Injury Firm

by Justin Smulison

For more than 35 years, Salvi & Maher LLP has defended their clients throughout Illinois and Wisconsin in various areas of personal injury law, including medical malpractice, motor vehicle accidents, premises liability and trucking litigation.

Skyline of Chicago with green river and blue background


Athea Trial Lawyers

by Justin Smulison

Athea Trial Lawyers is a nationally recognized firm who has received record-breaking victories throughout the country on behalf of personal injury victims.

women with shades of blue in mass arrangement

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Germany™ 2023

by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from Germany.

Black, red and yellow stripes

Choosing a Title Company: What a Seller Should Expect

by Roy D. Oppenheim

When it comes to choosing a title company, how much power exactly does a seller have?

Choosing the Title Company As Seller

Famous Songs Unprotected by Copyright Could Mean Royalties for Some

by Michael B. Fein

A guide to navigating copyright claims on famous songs.

Can I Sing "Happy Birthday" in Public?

What the Courts Say About Recording in the Classroom

by Christina Henagen Peer and Peter Zawadski

Students and parents are increasingly asking to use audio devices to record what's being said in the classroom. But is it legal? A recent ruling offer gives the answer to a question confusing parents and administrators alike.

Is It Legal for Students to Record Teachers?

Could Reign Supreme End with the Queen?

by Sara Collin

Canada is revisiting the notion of abolishing the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth II’s passing, but many Canadians and lawmakers are questioning if Canada could, should and would follow through.

Teacup on saucer over image of Queen's eye


Mastering the Art of Trial Practice

by John Fields

With its billion-dollar track record, Morelli Law Firm has earned a reputation as one of the country's most successful trial firms.

Morelli and team at table in office with windows