New District Court Opinion Discussing the Scope of Specific Jurisdiction After Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco County,582 U.S. ____ (2017) – Wow, that was quick!
A District Court Judge from the Northern District of California has already weighed-in on the scope of specific jurisdiction after the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco County,582 U.S. ___ (2017). In Ophelia Dubose v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case No. 17-cv-00244-JST, the U.S. District Judge applied a “but for” test and found that specific jurisdiction existed because Plaintiff alleges that “nearly every pivotal clinical trial necessary for NDA approval involved studying of the [subject drugs] throughout the State of California,” and that “but for the pre-NDA development of the [subject drugs] within the State of California, the drugs would not have been sold and marketed throughout the U.S. nor ingested by Plaintiff” (internal citation omitted). Although finding that jurisdiction existed, the Court then granted the Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of South Carolina where the Plaintiff resided and the “… overwhelming majority of events directly related to Plaintiff’s injuries took place …” See the opinion here for more detail.