California Supreme Court
Sep. 7, 2016
Bristol-Myers: Ruling thwarts divide and conquer strategy
The real motivation in challenging jurisdiction is not because litigating here would be difficult or unfair; the real motivation is to make each plaintiff litigate his or her claim in local courts, without the benefit of the collective resources available in a group action. By Sharon Arkin
In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011), and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court substantially narrowed what we all thought were the standard criteria for imposing general personal jurisdiction over corporations, essentially limiting it to the defendant's state of incorporation, its "nerve center" or its principal place of business. In other words, ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In