D.C. Circuit Sidesteps Bristol-Myers Personal Jurisdiction Defense in Class Action, but Seventh Circuit Rejects It

This week, two federal appellate courts published notable opinions on the intersection between personal jurisdiction jurisprudence and Rule 23 class action procedure. The defendants in both cases face nationwide class actions, and each argued that the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773, precludes district courts from exercising specific jurisdiction over the claims of unnamed putative class members from other states. The majority of a D.C. Circuit panel decided to resolve the appeal before it on alternate grounds. But in dissent, Judge Silberman explained why he understands Bristol-Myers’s holding to extend to nationwide class actions brought in federal court. The next day, a unanimous Seventh Circuit panel refused to extend Bristol-Myers to federal class actions.

As detailed here, the Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers decision addresses state courts’ jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident plaintiffs in mass tort actions. The Court held that a California state court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to nonresident plaintiffs’ claims because the defendant was not incorporated in California and did not have its principal place of business in California (thus defeating general jurisdiction) and because the claims lacked an “adequate link” to California (thus defeating specific jurisdiction). Following that ruling, district courts across the country have split on whether to extend the logic of Bristol-Myers from state mass tort actions to nationwide class actions.

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit declined an opportunity to squarely confront this issue in Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. The D.C. Circuit, on an interlocutory appeal, affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims of all nonresident putative class members. Reasoning that putative class members are not “parties” to a lawsuit before a class is certified, Judge Tatel ruled that the defendant’s motion to dismiss their claims was premature. The opinion therefore did not reach the parties’ arguments about Bristol-Myers’s application to federal class actions. One member of the three-judge panel, Judge Silberman, dissented and explained his belief that the logic of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bristol-Myers necessarily extended to the context of federal class actions.

The Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in Mussat v. IQVIA the very next day, reversing the district court’s grant of a motion to strike nationwide class allegations. Chief Judge Wood acknowledged in her opinion for the unanimous panel that, before the Bristol-Myers decision, the propriety of federal courts exercising specific jurisdiction over nationwide classes had “not been examined closely.” Analogizing to Supreme Court decisions disregarding unnamed class members for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction and venue, the Seventh Circuit rejected the defendant’s request to apply Bristol-Myers’s logic to the class allegations before it: “[W]e hold that the principles announced in Bristol-Myers do not apply to the case of a nationwide class action filed in federal court under a federal statute.” One distinction between the two cases relates to the basis for subject matter jurisdiction: Molock involved state law claims brought under diversity jurisdiction, while Mussat relied on federal question jurisdiction.

Litigants should expect the issue of Bristol-Myers’s application to nationwide class actions to continue to percolate up to other appellate courts and potentially make its way before the Supreme Court. Personal jurisdiction aficionados may also be interested in Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, where the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to address whether a plaintiff’s substantive claims must arise out of a defendant’s forum contacts in order to generate specific jurisdiction over the defendant.

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.