The Ninth Circuit filed its anticipated en banc opinion on personal jurisdiction last week, and the result is the broadening of Internet-based personal jurisdiction in an age of ubiquitous online commerce. The district court in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., No. 22-15815, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9410 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), had ruled that
No surprise, we are not fans of civil RICO. We don’t like how it is misused by lawyers on the other side to convert run-of-the-mill pharmaceutical and medical device cases into class actions. We don’t like that it carries the possibility of treble damages and attorneys’ fees. We don’t like the elasticity of its terms.
Today’s case, Ganz v. Grifols Therapeutics LLC, 2023 WL 5437356 (S.D. Fla. 2023), involves a biologic but also speaks to drugs and medical devices. The mixed decision dismisses design-defect and failure-to warn claims but allows manufacturing-defect and failure-to-recall claims to proceed. Although we’ll briefly summarize those rulings, the decision is more interesting for noting
We have never been sued in Hawaii. At least not yet. It could be that someday someone will call us to task for eating too much shave ice or using the word “mahalo” incorrectly. But so far we have traversed the Aloha State unscathed by legal exposure. Our favorite Hawaiian island is Kauai, the Garden
Once again this week we turn to the aridities of personal jurisdiction. Or is that perhaps a bit … harsh? After all, last week personal jurisdiction had a rare moment in the public spotlight as a result of SCOTUS oral arguments in a case involving the law of Pennsylvania — our usually-fair-but-not-so-much-in-this-case Commonwealth. The issue was whether Pennsylvania could condition a corporation’s right to do business in the Keystone State on that corporation’s consent to personal jurisdiction in our overly exciting court system. We’ve written about this consent theory before, and we previewed the SCOTUS case here. If Pennsylvania and other jurisdictions can get away with it, then the Bauman and BMS SCOTUS personal jurisdiction decisions become something very near to dead letters. It seems that several of the Justices last week thought as much, as their questions evinced deep skepticism about this bogus jurisdiction-via-consent scheme. You’ve heard of long-arm jurisdiction statutes, right? These are strong-arm jurisdiction statutes.
But predicting SCOTUS rulings is a sucker’s game.
Meanwhile, press coverage of the SCOTUS arguments was predictably daft. Some commentators bemoaned how rejection by SCOTUS of jurisdictional consent via coercive business registration statutes might make it harder to sue corporations. That is utterly wrong. One can sue the corporation where it is incorporated or headquartered, or where the the events at issue happened. What is unfair about that? The only real losers would be plaintiff lawyers who apparently think there is a need and a right to sue companies where the plaintiff lawyers are located. Nothing propinks like propinquity. But no one should shed any tears for lazy and/or cynical forum shopping.
Today’s case, Armstrong v. Atrium Med. Corp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195231 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2022), involves a more quotidian personal jurisdiction issue: can a product liability plaintiff drag a foreign parent company into court? We’ve written about this issue before (here, for example). Including a corporate parent in a lawsuit can be a nice bit of leverage for a plaintiff. It is an annoyance. It is unnecessary. Fortunately, courts usually do not smile upon it.
Continue Reading E.D. Wash. Finds No Personal Jurisdiction Over Swedish Parent Company
Longtime readers of the Blog know we have a soft spot in our hearts for Nebraska. The state motto—“Equality Before the Law”—is both elegant and meaningful, and we should also call it progressive, given that it dates back to 1867—one year before ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have also previously shared our affection for
California’s courts have never met a case they did not like. Or, more precisely, they have never met a case over which they would not exercise jurisdiction if arguably supported by the facts, and even when not supported by the facts. We are exaggerating, of course, but not by much. You will recall that the
This is called the Drug and Device Law blog, but every once in a while we discuss cases that involve neither drugs nor devices. Usually that is because those cases offer lessons applicable in our subject matter area. Or – and this is a confession – sometimes those cases are simply fun. For example, we
We have long thought that “direct filing” procedures in multidistrict litigation were a solution in search of a problem. We also think direct filing procedures in MDLs pose significant waiver risks without a corresponding upside. Alas, our inclinations were confirmed recently when the Seventh Circuit ruled that a mass tort defendant’s acquiescence to complaints filed
New Mexico calls itself the Land of Enchantment, and with good reason. Carlsbad Caverns, White Sands National Monument, the Albuquerque Balloon Festival, the ski slopes of Taos, and Chaco Culture National Historic Park are all splendid visual treasures. A green chili burger is a lovely work of art. And there is a reason all that