The United States Supreme Court recently dealt a death blow to forum shopping in a product liability class action. In Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, et al 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) Five Hundred and Ninety Two (592) non-resident plaintiffs joined Forty Six (46) residents in a class action filed in California alleging that Plavix manufactured by the defendant had injured their health. The defendant filed motions to quash service of summons on the non-resident claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The California courts denied the motions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and held that the California courts lacked specific jurisdiction to entertain the claims. It said:
?Our settled principles regarding specific jurisdiction control this case. In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ?affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.? Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (internal quotation marks and brackets in original omitted). When there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant?s unconnected activities in the State. See id, at 931, n.6, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (?[E]ven regularly occurring sales of a product in a State do not justify the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim unrelated to those sales?).?
While the decision dealt with non-resident plaintiffs in a class action, the rationale should apply to a single non-resident plaintiff?s suit in a state which has no connection to the specific claim at issue.