your argument first this morning in case sixteen four six six bristol myers squibb company versus the spirit court of california mr katyal thank you mr chief justice and may please the court the california supreme court ruled that hundreds of plaintiffs who were not prescribed a drug in california who did not take it in california who lacked any injury in california and who had no other connection to california could sue in california the court reason there was a sliding scale whereby the defendants other conduct with other californians could establish specific jurisdiction those concepts have some footing in the law but that putting is limited to general jurisdiction which is lacking here and this court has never permitted specific jurisdiction in such circumstances which is presumably why respondents don't bother defending the california supreme court instead they meant a whole new test never before seen by any court whereby an ad hoc reasonable miss inquiry with any number of undetermined balancing factors will create jurisdiction your  what we conceded what we did say is that the reasonability reasonable missing koreas with respect to the third kind of safety valve factored we didn't make the argument with respect to the third prong but we absolutely did make the argument that jurisdiction here was unreasonable below the pages for an eighteen in the court of appeal in the california supreme court brief we made very clear we said it would quote offend basic notions of federalism and fairness at page four of page eighteen we said instead of achieving jurisdictional fairness permits a court it's a multiple claims of damages nationwide or even worldwide and even unrelated causes of action and bring them to a stiction correct by one plaintiff so you're not you're not claiming that that offends two crosses and interesting at least personal jurisdiction is only applied in some federal courts by dint of common law or absolutely fighting and it's not the law in any court any state court anywhere the pendent personal jurisdiction so how do you deal so you're saying that pendant jurisdiction for claims that in some way are connected violates to process we're doing further we're saying that there has to be a causation between the underlying cause of every single individual action and so you're destroying penton jurisdiction on every level we're not destroying it there is no cause there is no pen and jurisdiction for state claim as it exists right now this court has said time and again starting with international shoe the relevant locus of analysis justice sotomayor that's always been my baes of argument let's put it aside but i'm just saying that that has been both the law in all that your position right now is country will manufacture in one place even though it it may be that that's enough for a specific jurisdiction depending on what the underlying claim is exactly justice ginsburg the question here is can they go along on two hundred eighty million pills that have that bristol myers assault in california  thousand to twenty one explains every precedent of this court winds up on the causality principle and your most recent decisions in goodyear and i'm learning i think make this very clear now with respect to the reasonability deficiency i think the first thing to say is their rule doesn't create any efficiency at all that is just take a look at the facts of this case even after the california supreme court ruled you already you still have action going on in new york coordinated actions  states assuming that judgment was final i don't think so in their brief reply brief you know cites a bunch of you know literature on this that basically because there's so much divergence in the underlying causes of action collateral stoppel just doesn't work substantive standards as a matter of actual reality as opposed to you know kind of a theory about deceptive marketing or something they do differ so much from state to state well it's not a let's assume that they were new york and california are basically the same the facts are basically the same if there's a california are at stake here in other words you know usually we've looked to fairness for the defendant when we make the due process and corey so what is the unfairness in here given that there is another suit that's going to be going forward in california and what mr goldstein months is just for additional claims of the exact same kind to be joins to that suit exactly so there's three values this court's isolated federalism predictability and fairness the federal you just start with the fairness absolutely so the fairness concern and it's going to take me about forty five seconds to walk through the lifecycle if you've timed it but i have and but our view is to affirm bristol myers in senator firm the judgment below or to accept his theory is going to be for the you know be complex it's going to be inefficient and unfair and do something this court has never blessed before and certainly that bristol myers and opened itself up to so the first thing that would happen in these lawsuits is it is terminations of choice of acknowledges there are five hundred seventy five out of state plaintiffs from thirty three state so the california court's going to have to first figure that out second it's then going to have to apply california procedure to all of these cases which is markedly different than the procedure in the places in which bristol meyer sold the drugs as to which cause the underlying injury so for example california has different rules about summary judgment it's really hard to get summary judgment very easy to go to trial it's also they don't have a so they have a very lenient permissive testimony with respect to experts that isn't something bristol myers bought into when they sold for example a drug in ohio to an ohio plaintiff then you get to the trial and this is i think the most important part because the re because their brief points it out as this is a fish and and it's coordinating all of these actions take a look at joint appendix page seventy four which is their jury trial demand this is not one jury trial they are seeking six hundred sixty one individual jury trials and in each of those jury trials the court is going to have to determine a whole variety of things which are going to diverge from case to case things about different rules about legally different states federal rules and contributory negligence they have different rules on the learned intermediary doctrine which is a critical doctrine and failure to warn cases some states don't have it at all others restricted in all sorts of various ways to be fact determinations about what is specific injury and not and that is why th issues have to be decided in the six hundred individual cases and so the do question is what's the unfairness of coordinating the common points in one place when there is so much overlap in the essence of the plea which is false marketing the justices who are first of all i don't think that they would be coordinated they'd be decided at individual trial by trial and i don't think they'd be courted to the extent you wanted coordination the federal system obviously has a way to do khan i mean individual a lot of individual california claims can be joint and then we can have an argument about what should probably be joint and what can go off individually but but that's a different question than the question in this case which is why is it unfair to texas claims to do your claims to the california claims once we already have a mass action which will have multiple jury trials so in the reasons or both procedure and substance so procedurally you'll be a playing by different rules than what the defendant has accepted in this court's always said one of the goals in specific jurisdiction litigation is to make sure in t up to businesses particularly small businesses like the plaque brief points out look if you enter a jurisdiction here's what you're going to face and bristol myers doesn't disagree when they sold one hundred eighty million pills in california they open themselves up to the jurisdiction for those pills the question is can the folks from the thirty three other states sue on that and then that does create substantive unfairness or different juries there's all sorts of things that happen and if i could just as kagan just returned of the first two values predictability is really important there are four million people who take pla in america if you accept their rule it's not as if they have to sue in california each of those people can sue in any of the fifty states that's two hundred million possibilities that is the absolute already know because this is a nationwide marketing that you do nationwide drug you already know that you're subject to jurisdiction and any of the fifty states and have to be prepared to confront your wrist action at any of the fifty states but justice kagan critically we know that we confront it with respect to each individual states procedure in substance we don't accept the idea that that plaintiffs can play by least common denominator rules and file ohio claims in california or guess what i'm saying is that the unfairness aspect of this is what i really want to drive at because predictability just honestly doesn't seem like what's at issue here given that you know it's perfectly predictable to have a geisha in any of the fifty states so the question is why is it unfair to have more litigation than you would in one of those states rather than another just as kagan it's not a numbers game something amount of litigation it's the way in which the litigation unfolds both procedurally and substantively and this court specific tourists prudence has always tried to say to defendants look we want you to know the consequences that follow when you enter into a new market and when bristol myers for example sells in ohio to an ohio plaintiff i don't think they sit there and think oh that allows me to be sued in california of course they can be sued if you don't think this is concrete  you can for me and i'm assuming that you are interested the flip side of the plaintiff's interests so why is it that a person would choose to sue in california and why is it that bristol squibb does not want more suits the necessary to happen in california well i suppose one thing the plaintiffs only have one thing to think about which is what's kind of jurisdictionally advantageous for them either procedurally or substantively you know for us when we're for example thinking about we're doing corporate weaving you know  up or a principal place of operations in new jersey i mean nobody could say new jersey is kind of a defendant friendly state it's done so for all sorts of reasons about employment and things like that and so i do think this court has identified a concern in this area about forum shopping we  that concerns exists exists here but i think that kind of underlying this is a notion about predictability in what their rule does fairness and then federalism which i'd like to get to because this court's identified of starting world wide bokes wagon as a critical thing in the idea that ohio plaintiffs the state of ohio can't adjudicate these cases because they're grabbed by california is something again that this is a guess and i guess i'm not i'm to i'm feeling a little bit stymied here because i thought you were going to come at me with saying those things i'm starting here this is my problem before international should i think basic rule with qualifications it's utter a state is a sovereign and you know open its doors to whom it wants and to the matter oh that isn't quite but basically now along comes international shu no you can't not if it's unfair hence the questions now if that's what it is if that's the basic way to look at it and i here with the answer you give it many but not all of those answers i could i think of said the same thing in respect to multi district litigation and so it sounds to me if i'm right on that which i might not be you'd have to say which ones aren't there what we need here is a rule we need a panel we need congress we need them all the district panel but that isn't the constitution and then what i  if we say it's the constitution what do we do to either the class actions or maybe even multi district litigation i think you could solve that problem by putting the jurisdiction transfer record but then that's why i think what is it specifically that special sorry so just are we do we think you should write an opinion for us that doesn't deal with multi district litigation or class actions and that's easy to do the first thing to do is do what this court did capital footnote five and say federal is different than states that the due process guarantees apply differently precisely has no idea how you throw that one because there's not why solicit is due process then and how do you say that it's not just process merely because it's better for two reasons because it's not rival wrister stiction it's not ohio versus california in every state in between and because the whole question and due process is minimal contacts and people are deemed to have minimal contacts with the federal chief justice and may it please the court this court in good year and rejected approaches to general jurisdiction that would allow a plaintiff in one state to sue national company for product liability in all of the other forty nine those approaches exorbitant and unacceptably grasping the california supreme court misunderstood this court's decisions when allowed that same result under the label of specific jurisdiction as this court explained in goodyear specific jurisdiction lets the state exercise authority directivity within its borders which it has a strong interest in controlling but a state lacks a comparable interest in exercising authority over out of state defendants for right so i agree that the question here is whether the fact that the out of state plaintiffs have joined their claims in a single lawsuit with california plaintiffs makes a difference and i don't think that it does if you look at the interest that the court has considered in it students because i don't think that california has a greater interest in exercising control over the conduct of out of state defendants in another state just because those claims have been joined with in state plaintiffs i think the principal reason that respondent suggests that california does have that interest is an efficiency interest but this court is defines general jurisdiction in a way that allows plaintiffs to bring their suit together in a single form for efficiency as well as mr meyer so i think it's not it's not clear agreed that the person jurisdiction is defended by defendant so there may be some cases in this maybe such a case in which there is not one place where any group of defendants can be joined together we think generally procedure that was used would make a difference we think that the problem with mckesson here and i think page fifty nine aged sixty a of the opinion below makes makes it clear as it's not clear what the respondents are alleging that mckesson d h they're not alleging that mckesson distributed the drugs the plaintiffs received if mckesson did then there would obviously be some conduct that occurred in california that was connected to both plaintiffs that would make you not a lawsuit or the logic of your position assume a foreign corporation situation there is no place for plaintiffs to come together and sue that person correct i think that it might not be in the united states there will not be a general jurisdiction location for iraq after so many are across the united states all the marketing everything i the same the theory is the same but because it's a foreign state there's no one jurisdiction a foreign company there's no one jurisdiction in the united states now under your theory that's true for some  that talked about all of the criminal laws that would be subject to questioning on your your theory of constitutional due process what is your response to them is it the same as mr cook show will face that when we get to it no i don't think that the the score is applied it's civil personal jurisdiction cases in the same way in a criminal context the united states has a strong sovereign interest in regulating certain conduct when it occurs it was processed says that you can't have someone into a corner with which they've had no contacts how do you justify the many statutes these are statutes that are based on the idea that this is conduct that exercises some all of them have a civil component yes and with respect to the civil component i mean courts have looked to personal jurisdiction considerations we think if it's a federal statute the relevant question would we haven't talked about we talk a fair amount about fairness and predictability but we haven't talked about federalism and almost a culture was trying to get to that i was hoping you might just give us a couple of words about what the implications are for the interests of ohio in it ministering its own view that there are fifty different states and that other states are also going to have an interest in getting conduct that occurs within their borders so if specific jurisdiction is defined in a very permissive way that allows states that don't have a strong interest in regulating the conduct which state oh we worried about here are we worried about the plaintiffs state are we worried about the defendant state i think there are two states that have a very strong interest at least two states that have a very strong interest in providing a forum for the conduct issue here it's states where the plaintiffs were injured and states where the defendants are at home because states have an interest in regulating the conduct of their still on the plaintiff side that seems a pretty attenuated interest if you usually when we say that the state has an interest it's in protecting their own citizens and providing their own citizens with a forum but here in the citizen has decided he doesn't want that protection he wants to go someplace else see you know a little bit weak to say that the state has a very strong interest in protecting its own citizens that doesn't want to and i don't think so at all i think your honor that the state has a strong interest in regulating the conduct that occurs within its borders and defining what's fair with respect to how that conduct is adjudicated and that's also true it would seem to me that the state a has a very strong interest in nation like the federal government isn't that's right your honor and that's exactly what this court has already said in worldwide volkswagen and nicastro we think if the court applies that principle here the council strongly against expanding specific jurisdiction to allow states to reach claims in which they don't have an interest because it does tend to crowd out the jurisdiction and what is your justice pryor and what is your solution to mass torts so we think there are a couple solutions claims like this which are i think master claims can be brought in a jurisdiction of general jurisdiction they can also be brought in federal courts and consolidated through schemes like the m d l scheme these are both solutions that provide efficiency and of course congress can step in if it sees a particular kind of mass tort that it doesn't that it wants to provide an additional form for it's done that for specific kinds of your for instance mass accidents so that's an additional vehicle there are forms where claims like this can be brought  and so the kind of context that you're talking about in the fifth amendment are context with the national sovereignty so in that case you would look to does this company have the relevant minimum context to make it fair for the national sovereignty so i think the united states as opposed to an this there are nationwide service of process provisions in which congress has exercised that kind of authority and there's been no disagreement in the court of appeals courts of appeals other this court has reserved the issue itself a nominee we think it's a different sovereign and so a different kind of context that would be mr chief justice and may please the court we believe that four facts make are sufficient to establish a specific personal jurisdiction in this case if i could just very briefly summarize them the first is that the defendant engaged in the systematic and continuous exploitation of this market california the forum with respect to the matter that gave rise to the claims of the sale of plavix the second is the case was decided below and search for i was granted on the litigating here would not place a significant additional burden on v m s it wouldn't be unfair because the claims arise not from parel activity but the same activity by b m s it's the same legal theory and the same operative it's the third is that there is a significant governmental interest that is implicated by this case in that the courts are able to bring together a large volume of litigation that would otherwise be atomized across the states and the fourth is that there is what or this that would be atomized across the states my point is that you know we have a large number of cases distribute this drug nationally mckesson distributed seven hundred thousand pills of plavix outside california a week and we think that's quite significant for multiple reasons it is a choice by b m s a contact that involves california in the nationwide distribution in addition not necessarily to all the plaintiffs here ok a couple things about that it is impossible to trace a particular pill to a particular person because what happens is you're admitted to a hospital you're given plavix you then go see your doctor who gives you a sample and then prescribes it to you and then you may be in this is that living facility it's not possible for us to track particularly to make cason my point is simply is that they made a choice to contract with the manager or national distributor of the drug located in california and that has a significant point for california specific interest in this litigation counsel if i think justice ginsburg's qu you're quite right that we don't have a perfect solution but what we can do is aid the the state's judicial systems by allowing the litigation to be centralized you just compare our rule with theirs the upshot of their rule precisely because in multi defendant mass tort actions you don't have a common general jurisdiction is that there's going to be a bunch of litigation in ohio and ivana and texas then that's a very patronizing view of federalism california with go i'll don't worry ohio will take care of you that's not that's that's not the idea of the federal system the federal system says that states are limited so let me just and i'll just analogized this case to keaton if i might because there you have a very similar situation and that is you have the new hampshire state courts or a new hampshire court and it is adjudicated in the claim there was an injury in new hampshire to that point if that's not present here that is absolutely correct but what the court said was that that wasn't the special feature of it and that was that that claim would otherwise be litigated in the fifty states and that the states had an interest in centralizing it if i could just make the final point about t publication rule and what that is says this is the restatement as to any single publication only one action for damages can be maintained all damages suffered in all jurisdictions can be recovered in that one action and a judgment for or against the pla upon the merits of that bar's any other action it's a very very unique situation that you know maps on the position you want to apply generally and it seems to me that that's a real over use of of keith ok if i could just give you my thoughts about that it is never been cited subsequently by the court has cited keeton multiple times never limited in that sense and though the single publication rule exists in most not all states remember keenan quite clearly says it doesn't exist in every state but all of the claims are allowed  new hampshire but it still has to be constitutional as my point and that is the states can make whatever decisions they like but keep makes quite clear that each publication is a separate liable each arises under each individual states last my general point is that there are two federalism interests here i quite take the point that california doesn't have an interest in adjudicating ohio's claim and it is territorially limited on the other hand the court has recognized in cases like that the states do have an interest in trying to make th simpler not more complicated how about the interest of the state that bristol myers resides in another words they might have an interest in not having their citizens hailed into court against their will in another part of the country you know i don't think that can be right and i would point out that mr cathy l in the united states of breed specific national fiction outside the home form is entirely appropriate here they just wanted to be in new jersey i don't understand how any of their arguments map onto the concession that a new jersey state court which is not their home state could adjudicate the claims from ohio nevada and texas just like california when all of the same things are true that state is adjudicating a claim from another place if i could just make the obvious is that this is your home state it isn't though but let's imagine it's a home or whatever and you say to the businesses in that state you make it you you do business here you make things here i don't care if you're home  make things here do business here incorporate here now you can be sued in any state still under special jurisdiction where you cause harm but you can't be sued in states where you did that i think is what i think that's what they're saying is the special federalism interest either the home state or the stoat or they did the manufacturing or the state where they you know whatever the other one is  does well all i can say is that in new jersey the example of new jersey in specific jurisdiction they would be adjudicating a claim of somebody who was harmed in ohio even though it's not their home but i did really want to focus on this the special interest that california has here because of the ripple role of mckesson you know the court is involved in but miscalled seen that that's a very fact specific argument and we took this i thought to decide the legal question whether we have some sort of causation requirement or permit this sliding scale business the california gauges and as a legal matter and on that i just wonder if if we move to this all things considered approach are we collapsing what had been previously two separate due process inquiries one was purposeful of ailment and the other was fundamental fairness and as i hear it really it all just boils down to fundamental fairness and as judge silberman said the length of the chancellor foot so i'm just wondering what happens to the first test does it have any bite and if it doesn't does that suggest some problem doc trying to formulate with your position if i could give you a narrowband answer and then a bigger picture ensure that the narrow answer is that our view of the relatedness inquiry that is articulated in international shoot does require that they engage in the what keegan and international issue referred to as the continuous and systematic exploitation of the market that's a contact and the relationship has to be that it is the same claim on the same operative facts there's no general it's like saying mr goldstein that the claim relates to another claim that relates to contacts with the or i mean i guess i'm missing what the relationship is between an ohio plaintiff's claim and the defendant's contacts with the form that doesn't go through another claim oh here's how we understand that it would operate and that is the california court is providing a forum to adjudicate a claim about the lawfulness of b m s is design and manufacturing and distribution of this drug plavix that is activity that didn't occur in california ok that is activity that they quite clearly say happened in new jersey so the california court is going to make an adjudication of that our point is simply that when the california court has the unquestioned power to determine under a legal standard that that was lawful and a set of facts it's not limited no i understand that that's your point but i guess what i've always thought that our personal jurisdiction cases require is somebody to state in state something like this the plaintiff's cla relates two or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state so here bristol myers contacts with california i just want you to tell me how an ohio plaintiff's claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with california assist it does because why it does because the relevant contact is the nationwide activity that has to be corrected by the way because just take a company that i trying to exploit it manufacture something in new jersey and set off to a distributor knowing that the distributor will exploit the california market the only thing the defendant does is do something in new jersey right it's not activity in california that gives rise to specific jurisdiction the california courts jurisdiction attaches to the activity outside it's the same conduct it is and i'm easily understand that because you're saying usually we say how does the claim relate to the contact in a particular state nationwide contacts being a nationwide advertising campaign a nationwide marketing campaign and so for exactly but i have a second answer and that is there is a critical additional contact here that gives rise to a very significant interest of california and understanding just of course it's there's a big picture question about the standard but then we do have a set of facts here the california court did wrong and the caissons role it can just be taken away from us and it would be very confusing to the lower courts to simply cast it aside and that is california has a very significant interest in what's confusing will but simply saying here's the correct test reverse remand go apply the correct us well you're going to have to say something about mckesson is all i'm saying is that the other side really wants to put it entirely to the side and there's been a lot of important questions here about the interest of california and i just don't think you can get rid of b m s is the most significant contact with california and say that it's irrelevant here and that is california has a very significant interest in providing a complete kind of plain and what actually the plavix claim could have it depends on who we're talking about but yes there could have been a class action and i take the other side the necessary implication  broke the it could be brought depending on whether you think mckesson plays a significant role it would have been brought i think in california is the place where the class action would have been brought i will can i just bracket one important thing for you to realize about all of this litigation justice ginsburg it will illustrate i think how the states do work together you mentioned all of the cases are out there and mr cathy all his stress that he just doesn't mention that there is a special master the governor who is responsible for disputes relating to all of the litigation all around the country both federal and state there is a great deal of collaboration here now my point about  by agreement of the parties and if there's the discovery is handled through all of the cases in all of that a court of the southern district or it is i think that in federal or state i don't think it is actually regarded that way is probably best regarded as federal but it's a person who resolves by agreement all of the discovery disputes for example across all of the litigation the united states has a discussion of this in its brief about how this is relatively common but the important thing about mckesson its role in the case is that california does have a significant interest in providing a single form where this case against mckesson can be resolved because look at the dilemma to mckesson if mckesson loses the case remember the out of state plaintiffs unquestionably consumer cason in california if they win terrible problem for mass towards answer bring your case in federal court now why couldn't these five hundred and seventy two or whatever people bring their cases in federal court well it would depend on things not all can not ok right out but some very large number and then that very large number is no problem they bring the case in the place who that is jurisdiction it's consolidated in the multi district panel and the multi district panel it to that venue for trial which is convenient for all not what they'll say you know they'll agree with and then they'll say the solution to this great masterwork problem is that's what federal courts are for it doesn't work perfectly decisions are having its own procedures that are different from the home form are obviously true in m t l litigation it raises the same constitutional question but in an ideal litigation or in federal court so the procedures are common across courts in theory well but remember maybe more in theory than in practice maybe so and also choice of laws to substantive laws his concern in the judge so i do think there's a lot of a block but the other thing is this two points just as far the first is yes there are other ways to do it but that doesn't make it the way we are doing it unconstitutional w has talked about here is minimum due process remember this if mr caviar walked up to me in california and handed me a subpoena he could sue me in california on absolutely any now his client sold nine hundred eighteen million dollars worth of plavix in california and says it violates the constitution now let me not be a lot of money necessarily to some people but it is greater than the gross domestic product of twenty one countries counsel and we're dealing with a jurisdictional rule and we do that we want the rule to be as simple as possible and you have  started out with the four different factors and all that but i'm particularly concerned a brief with page fifty four you say well if there were only a handful of people from california and hundreds from texas or tennessee that be a different case and which i think you mean it wouldn't satisfy due where you have eighty six in california and five hundred seventy five elsewhere and there's a difference i suppose between handfuls and hundreds and eighty six and five seventy five but where exactly that difference is it seems to me is going to be impossible to determine right so mr chief justice it's like that's the right use a handful in california hundreds tennessee and texas no good eighty six in california five seventy five somewhere else ok but let me explain why that's true because agreed that when the court announced international issue it said quite clearly they're not going to be formulaic they're going to be case by case judgments what happened here is that there were two per se categorical rules the first is there used to be general jurisdiction because they were doing business and pinoy or said that we could get any at that california could educate anything in california and with respect as insofar as they had assets in the state those were clear categorical rules you were convinced that those clear categor rules could produce some unfairness and so the court and now nst a rule that is much more encompassing of the facts that it accounts for if the court wanted to clear a rule that clear rules have existed the court has abandoned them in fairness to defendants it's very hard i think to blame us for saying now we're going to look at the factors involved i know that you're articulating a rule that requires business is trying for it we're to do business and plaintiffs where to sue and courts whether it's really your rule depends upon some line between handful and one and hundreds and eighty six and five seventy five where is exactly there there is no precise number i will say there were twenty in california and five seventy five would that satisfy due process i think that it is i cannot answer that question to your case you want to be able to at least answer that i know my case is constitutional mr chief justice all i'm saying is that the when you have the continuous and systematic exploitation of the market where you have the ability to bring a bunch of cases together for the benefit of all of the states it is true that there is going to be and the reason that this is not a practical problem i will tell you is that the bar does what it did here and that is it tries for efficiency purposes even if for its own sake to bring these cases together so you really don't end up in situations where you have five in one place and people try and bring mr gore i mean it seems to me on your theory it could be zero california plaintiffs because here's what you told me you told me that the reason that this that in ohio citizens clam arises out of the contacts in california is because the contacts in california really nationwide contacts and if that's so it's met regardless of whether there are any california plaintiffs or not so if that's your theory it doesn't matter whether there are eighty six or twenty years because the contacts arise out of the nationwide slash california contest so that's not a crime arises out of that that's not correct because your task that you've articulated has two core parts to  first is the minimum context the relationship between the contacts with the state and the litigation and the second is the fairness of the litigation and what is absolutely critical to our case it was critical to the county i don't think that's right mr goldstein are aris out of relating to test has always been about the first part of the inquiry and then all of the four factor is a backstop to that what's an additional test after we decide whether your claim arises out of the form but we have to satisfy both in order to for there to be specific jurisdiction justice kagan remember that it is the case that not that much weight in your prior precedent has been placed on the reasonableness factors because these have always been claim arising from the same operative facts and the conduct is the same conduct that gives rise to the state litigation and that is it maps on perfectly and that is really important because it means to set a guinness to justice kagan's question about it would matter if there were no california plea it would relate to but it would not be constitutional because it would not be reasonable on the second part of the test because they are already in california on the mass they are facing dozens upon dozens of bond dozens of the same claim remember what the court said in making the move from pennoyer to international shoe which i'd like to come back to if you don't need the resources to goldstein but if you don't need a single plaintive to satisfy the first prong of the due process and corey again what function does that first prong have left to do why doesn't it all just run into the second fundamental fairness test what is left will because it gives the state the power the territorial power because it does have the power to adjudicate with respect to that conduct it is both parts that are important i had said that i wanted to come back to you about a bigger picture answer of a little while ago and that is i do think it's really important that this may be the beginning or the middle of a multi decade effort to try and take a look at the original understanding of the due process clause and do that across the court's body of precedent and we have urged the court if it is serious about that endeavor to take a look at the relationship of international shoe and pennoyer because from the founding of the country up through the adoption of the fourteenth amendment it was perfectly clear and undisputed that california could adjudicate this claim at least up to and including the assets that they have in the state of california they are within california's territory there is no dispute about that international issue and schaffer say we are going to modernize our understanding of the fourteenth amendment question is a presented yes it is because we affirmatively argue to you that you should overrule this court's precedents we're not extend them we of course couldn't is an alternative ground for defending the judgment below we specifically urge it in our brief it is squarely in front of you i do not think you can pass it by and if the if the can't be right i do think the driving concern in cases like time were in good year about general jurisdiction is that you can see somebody into the form and sue them about absolutely anything and this is a world of difference because this is being this suit is being brought on behalf on the basis of their conduct in the state with respect to this drug and the second is i do think the court recognized in diameter quite explicitly that the retrenchment of general jurisdiction how these cases had always been brought and so there's no argument no general jurisdiction why am i here says defendant because says the judge you have enough activity in our state for us to call you into court to answer to one of our citizens who was hurt a special jurisdiction right specifically but why am i here in respect to smith because you see smith isn't a citizen of our state so where that answer sounded this is logic and what's bothering about the whole case is its logic and i don't know the practicalities right but but the you see the logic doesn't seem the same i cannot say because you are a citizen of texas because that cuts no ice in california so what is it i say in a single sentence that does make it clear to that defendant why he is here you are already here on this claim and there is nothing unfair about having you have it with respect to another pla see that it increases the efficiency at all oh well sir remember the big and important part of our analysis is that there is the governmental interest in that the litigation in this form does consolidate things and make it simpler the state's interest in having six hundred cases litigated together rather than in fifty different forms it's material to our case that it does imply five things but at the very least the role of mckesson here does distinguish california from every other state if they contract with a california company for the nationwide distribution of this drug so that it's perfectly understandable that the legal issues that arise from that agreement in the distribution would be in this form it's completely predictable and does distinguish california from everyone and i'm going back to justice briar's question about federal courts and the district litigation because you didn't say something that makes me think if you didn't say it i don't understand assuming that there was subject matter jurisdiction that there's diversity is still it seems to me that personal jurisdiction so if it's what would happen justice briar is saying is you would have a lawsuit a class action that would be removed to federal court specific jurisdiction would exist under federal rule of civil procedure for k there then it would be transferred for pretrial purposes to the  form and then returned for purposes of trial and so his point i think would be that it would be ok in federal court in the in the m p l system my answer back is that there are still lots of other objections about it being inconvenient it's not where he's at would be choice of law issues that does really a lot of the fairness concerns that mr cathy ellis talking about do arise in m t l your eyes in the new jersey example he gives of specific personal jurisdiction but at the very least what i would say is that the court can write in opinion that simply says this is not your ordinary case if it were your ordinary case and mckesson wasn't in it if the members of the court believed it there wouldn't be jurisdiction but they made this conscious choice to go into california with respect to this with respect to this drug and then the other argument that i do think has to be confronted is that at the very least the court has to consider that when it went to international issue it excluded the pinoy or basis of jurisdiction which is the traditional power of the states from the founding within their territory that always existed it doesn't seem to unfair to me to say his clients did almost a billion dollars worth of business in the state of california they have enormous assets that they have placed in the state that they could be held liable up to the extent of those assets is not a violation of due process if i heard you correctly you said something about overruling cases is that right if it were necessary to we do not think it's necessary to for multiple reasons including that if you just simply at say that pennoyer basis of jurisdiction exists in addition to the international issue basis of jurisdiction we clearly would prevail but to at least being able to get the bristol myers assets in california thank you counsel i three minutes m well they might or might not that's a purposeful of ailment stream of commerce theory which we're not trying to you know push here that's a very different thing i definitely your theory in a way that it would implicate particularly your mikes of it in your causation theories just a way that wouldn't preclude that so just sort of our my theory is exactly what this court said and rush which is why his argument a big mckesson doesn't work this is this quote plainly unconstitutional to search your stiction over one defendant based on the activities of another requirements of international you must be met as to each so mckesson doesn't answer to help him much doesn't move the ball you still have to show that the underlying conduct by the defendant did something so here when he talks about nine hundred eighteen million dollars we had no problem saying we're liable for the sales over there the question was was justice pryor was asking as well mr smith you know i'm selling to mr smith in ohio and yes i'm also separately selling nine hundred eighteen million dollars in california but you can't add those two things up together in confer personal jurisdiction this court has never done that which is why his rule is a novel one is justice kennedy said i think that one of the goals here in the streets prudence has been to say state a so the plea is not bristol myers directly but i think that when they make an arrangement with the distributor to launch drugs in a particular location they're liable for that that's we've conceded that below that's i think the way specific jurisdiction works the reason why federal federal actions are permissible they could've been permissible here just as priors because the fifth amendment fourteenth amendment operate differently justice kennedy's point about state a and b doesn't apply to federal government b s of the states and county allows for jurisdiction right now over these claims the only reason we're not in federal court right now justice ginsburg is because they filed less than one hundred claims in each action they smirked at them but ordinarily these would be federal court actions right now and the rule we are seeking doesn't disturb that in any way shape or form all we're saying is that when they have unrelated claims on causal claims in california to with respect to thirty three other states that's something us which the other states have an interest and the predictability here is incredibly important your in your opinion and hertz for example picking up on the chief justices question about business predictability is important this is a jurisdiction matter and clean rules for businesses to follow are important they need to know if i sell to mr smith what happens their rule doesn't tell you thank you council cases submitted