June 21, 2021

Volume XI, Number 172

Advertisement

June 18, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Federal Courts Continue to Split Over Whether They Have Personal Jurisdiction Over Claims Brought By Non-Forum Class Members Against Non-Forum Defendants

For years, the plaintiffs’ bar has crammed thousands of non-forum class members into a single action in order to more easily justify broader discovery requests, and to more quickly aggregate statutory damages. And many defendants and courts simply assumed that plaintiffs could do so. But that assumption was called into question by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, a mass tort case in which the Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims merely because resident plaintiffs “allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the nonresidents.”

Since then, many courts have limited the scope of a proposed class to residents of the state in which the federal court sits. We reported about one such case in January. More recently, the Southern District of California ruled in McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. that the fact that Bristol-Myers Squibb was a mass tort case does not necessarily mean that personal jurisdiction challenges cannot be made in other types of cases. Several courts within the Northern District of Illinois have also found that “specific jurisdiction depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy” and that Bristol-Myers did not change the standard itself.

Other courts have departed from this reasoning, however, and have become preoccupied with distinguishing class actions from mass actions like Bristol-Myers Squibb. For example, the Central District of California recently denied a motion to dismiss class action claims, agreeing with the plaintiff that “Bristol-Myers applies to mass tort actions, not class actions.” Sotomayor v. Bank of Am., No. 19-0541, 2019 WL 1985115 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2019). The plaintiff in this case sought to certify a class of “all persons throughout the United States” who received calls in a four-year span. The defendant argued that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it for the TCPA claims of any non-California residents because the defendant did not have the required minimum contact with California in relation to calls allegedly made to those unnamed plaintiffs.

The court disagreed. It held that, whereas each plaintiff in mass tort actions must represent “a real party in interest,” courts are not required to have specific jurisdiction over each unnamed class member in class actions. It reasoned that defendants in class actions as are not at risk of the same level of “unfairness” as in mass tort actions. That is so, the court found, because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires plaintiffs to satisfy several requirements before certifying a class, which provide sufficient “due process safeguards” that are lacking in mass tort actions.

Like other courts before it, though, the Sotomayor court struggled to identify any authorities from before Bristol-Myers Squibb that explicitly barred this personal jurisdiction defense. Indeed, the two decisions it cited lend little support to its contentions; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts describes the minimum due process protection that unnamed non-resident class members must receive in order to qualify as a “class member,” and Devlin v. Scardelletti began “by clarifying that this issue does not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts.” Neither decision invalidates defendants’ jurisdictional challenge to the claims of non-forum class members.

Indeed, as the Supreme Court noted in Bristol-Myers Squibb, that ruling was a “straightforward application . . . of settled principles of personal jurisdiction.” One of these principles dates back long before the Bristol-Myers Squibb decision: “[S]pecific personal jurisdiction does not lie over a nonresident plaintiff’s claim against a defendant not subject to general jurisdiction based solely on the close relationship between that claim and a claim brought in the same case by a resident plaintiff.” See, e.g.,Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2006).

© 2021 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 149
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Michael Daly, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Philadelphia, Litigation and Retail Attorney
Partner

Michael P. Daly defends class actions and other complex litigation matters, handles appeals in state and federal courts across the country, and counsels clients on maximizing the defensibility of their marketing and enforceability of their contracts. A recognized authority on class action and consumer protection litigation, he often speaks, comments, and writes on recent decisions and developments in the class action arena. He is also a founder of the firm’s TCPA Team; the senior editor of the TCPA Blog, which provides important information and insight...

215-988-2604
Associate

Qiusi Y. Newcom assists clients with navigating emerging issues and regulatory compliance in telecommunications laws and international trade laws. She is an associate with the Telecommunications Team and the Customs and International Trade Team.

Prior to joining Drinker Biddle, Qiusi was an associate with a boutique employment law firm where she handled labor and employment matters before federal courts and federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Qiusi also gained valuable litigation experience...

202-230-5370
Advertisement
Advertisement