Source: https://www.straffordpub.com/products/personal-jurisdiction-after-bristol-myers-squibb-unresolved-issues-shifting-plaintiff-strategies-2017-11-07
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:23:30+00:00

Document:
This CLE webinar will discuss the issue of personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Ct. and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell rulings. The program will review the progression of the Court’s prior decisions on corporate jurisdiction, as well as lower court decisions issued since the BMS/BNSF rulings. The program will discuss key unresolved legal issues and expected litigation tactics by plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court’s recent Bristol-Myers Squibb ruling continues the Court’s trend toward a constrictive view of corporate specific jurisdiction, starting with its 2011 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown decision and the 2014 Daimler AG v. Bauman ruling.
The Court’s ruling in BMS follows its 2017 decision in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, which held that the Court’s general jurisdiction decision in Daimler is based on the Fourteenth Amendment and is not limited to certain types of claims.
The BMS decision limits jurisdiction to those states where the defendant is incorporated or has its principal place of business. Plaintiffs must adapt their theories to assert jurisdiction after each Supreme Court ruling.
Defendants must prepare for the shift in litigation tactics post-BMS and develop effective responses. Despite the clear impact of the BMS ruling, several unanswered questions remain.
Listen as our panel of litigators analyzes personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants after the Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb and BNSF Railway Co. rulings. The program will discuss prior rulings by the Supreme Court on corporate jurisdiction, as well as decisions issued since the BMS/BNSF rulings. The panel will review unresolved issues and discuss expected plaintiff litigation tactics.
Prelude to Bristol-Myers Squibb and BNSF Railway Co.
What are the implications of Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court for litigation proceeding in states where the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction?
Does the Fifth Amendment similarly restrict personal jurisdiction by a federal court that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts?
How have plaintiffs adjusted their litigation strategies in response to prior Supreme Court cases restricting corporate personal jurisdiction and what might we expect to see post-Bristol-Myers Squibb?
Mr. Ackerman chairs the firm's Class Action Team and has a national class action defense practice. He has been involved in defending more than 60 class actions in numerous jurisdictions and in many of those cases prevailed on a dispositive motion. Mr. Ackerman has defended putative class action cases involving insurance and financial services, products liability, data breaches, healthcare, consumer contracts, and securities. Mr. Ackerman has chaired the Class Action Special Litigation Group of the Commercial Litigation Committee of the DRI, and is currently Vice Chair of the Class Action and Multidistrict Section of the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel.
Ms. Kelman concentrates her practice on complex commercial litigation, including class action defense, title insurance, and professional responsibility and ethics. Her class action and product liability experience in both state and federal courts is substantial, and includes her role as a key member of the firm teams in a wide array of litigated cases.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.