We’ve heard that we should welcome some new subscribers, who aren’t that interested in drug and device litigation, per se, but have been attracted by our coverage of personal jurisdiction issues relating to tort litigation generally. Thanks for joining. Here is a brief description of our available personal jurisdiction resources.
First, we maintain a personal jurisdiction “cheat sheet.” Because we don’t believe in doing the other side’s work for them, a cheat sheet contains only decisions with favorable results for defendants. The current cheat sheet contains a complete list of decisions rejecting so-called “jurisdiction by consent” going back to the 1950s. The cheat sheet is updated at least monthly with new, favorable cases. The current cheat sheet also lists decisions since Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”), that deny personal jurisdiction under its “arising from”/”related to” test.
There is a second cheat sheet, no longer maintained, that includes all favorable decisions on a corporation not being “at home” for purposes of general jurisdiction. Since this issue is essentially settled, we ceased updating it when BMS was decided.
There’s much more. Under our “state-by-state research” tab, located at the top of the blog’s home page, readers can find personal jurisdiction research under the “procedural law” heading inside the tab. We have a 50-State Survey on General Jurisdiction Through Consent by Registration To Do Business that was first published on 12/18/2017 and has been maintained since then. If you need to know about the current status of this question in any jurisdiction, this post is a good place to start.
We have another tab for “General Research,” which includes links to all of the blog’s posts that contain legal research (as opposed to posts about individual cases, or other miscellaneous posts such as the one you are reading right now). There are a lot of personal jurisdiction posts on various subjects:
Personal Jurisdiction – Arising out of/Relating to test (1/22/2018)
Personal Jurisdiction – Burden of proof (7/2/2018)
Personal Jurisdiction – Claim-by-claim analysis (1/11/2018)
Personal Jurisdiction − Class actions – (1/26/2018)
Personal Jurisdiction − Class actions – (11/20/2017)
Personal Jurisdiction – Consent by registering to do business (7/23/2018)
Personal Jurisdiction – Consent by registering to do business (3/5/2015)
Personal Jurisdiction – Discovery from third-parties (6/23/2016)
Personal Jurisdiction – Dormant commerce clause (2/22/2018)
Personal Jurisdiction – Dormant commerce clause (7/5/2016)
Personal Jurisdiction – Fifth Amendment/federal causes of action (2/19/2018)
Personal Jurisdiction – Litigation tourism (10/20/2017)
Personal Jurisdiction – Stream of commerce theory (3/12/2018)
Personal Jurisdiction – Waiver (4/23/2018)
With this research, always note the date of the post. Unlike our cheat sheets, and our 50-state survey, these jurisdictional research posts are not updated.
Finally, in our “Topic” list, there is a listing for “Personal Jurisdiction.” This will take you to a chronological list of every one of our personal jurisdiction posts. The blog has been around for over ten years, so working through this topic is a little like drinking from a fire hose. There are 96 posts under this topic, including all of those listed above. Most of them are discussions of individual cases, and they often cover more than one topic. Here is a list of them with individual links.
Yo, Canada! Oy, Vermont! (6/11/2018)
Hot and Not So Hot (6/4/2018)
Some Ideas About Innovator Liability (5/10/2018)
Pinnacle Hip – Fifth Circuit Legal Rulings (5/7/2018)
A Ray of Hope for Innovator Liability (4/20/2018)
Third Time Not Quite the Charm (3/6/2018)
MDL Direct Filing & Personal Jurisdiction (10/16/2017)
New Favorable Risperdal Decisions (8/16/2017)
Supreme Court Expands Forum-Shopping Crackdown (5/29/2017)
Litigation Tourism Ended In Missouri (3/1/2017)
M.D. Tenn. Bids Adieu to Out-of-State Class Reps (11/2/2016)
Misjoined Plaintiffs Can’t Be Used to Forum Shop (11/1/2017)
Personal Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (2/23/2016)
Check-Out Time at the Hotel California? (6/26/2015)
Breaking Bauman News from California (11/19/2014)
Breaking News – Two New Supreme Court Decisions (1/14/2014)
Breaking News – A TwoFer (10/29/2013)
Another Homework Failure By Plaintiffs (5/15/2012)
More Comments on Personal Jurisdiction (7/19/2011)
Personal Jurisdiction 2.0 (7/14/2011)
Defense Personal Jurisdiction Briefs Filed (11/12/2010)
Personal Jurisdiction – A Primer (10/21/2010)
As all these posts demonstrate, we have devoted a great deal of time and effort to helping our defense-side readers understand personal jurisdiction and then use it to help win their cases and try to rein in rampant litigation tourism by plaintiffs. We even identified Bauman as a case to watch, before it ever went to the Supreme Court:
In any event, we may not be waiting long for an answer. In Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1879210 (9th Cir. May 18, 2011), the Supreme Court’s bête noir, the Ninth Circuit, allowed the exercise of general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation on a dumbed-down agency test based solely on the defendant’s “right to control” its wholly-owned American subsidiary. Id. at *11-12. The result in Bauman is little different than what the Supreme Court rejected in Brown, in that a defendant doing no business in a jurisdiction is exposed to suit there over anything and everything, and would be equally exposed to litigation anywhere its subsidiary operates, which is everywhere it sells products.
If the unanimous Court in Brown meant what it said about general personal jurisdiction, then Bauman is wrongly – badly wrongly – decided. We expect a certiorari petition in Bauman. We won’t give odds on the Court’s accepting the appeal, as another long snooze may be in the offing, but if it does, our money would be on reversal.
(Emphasis added). Now there’s a bet that paid off, big-time.
Personal jurisdiction is right up there with Daubert and preemption as one of the biggest pro-defense developments of our legal careers. You can bet we’re going to keep thinking and writing about it.