In a Class of its Own: Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Worrisome Application to Class Actions

Abstract

Through its holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, the Supreme Court has left many questions unanswered. While the case concerned an aggregation of plaintiffs in a mass action in the California state courts, the opinion contained strong dicta to suggest its principles of specific jurisdiction could be applied to federal class actions – an entirely different procedural tool with its own host of complexities and problems. In the two years following the Supreme Court’s decision, federal district courts are split on applying the Bristol-Myers Squibb analysis to class actions. A distinct category of courts have applied the analysis to dismiss absent class members’ claims who allege no connection to the forum where the class action is filed; strongly implying that nationwide class actions can no longer be conducted outside a defendant’s state(s) of general jurisdiction. While federal district courts remain split on the issue, little to no federal circuit court authority has emerged to clarify the confusion. This Note analyzes the continuing district court divide and discusses the three main concerns which courts have advanced as reasons to apply Bristol-Myers Squibb to class actions: federalism concerns, a violation of the Rules Enabling Act, and forum shopping concerns. Ultimately, these concerns do not warrant applying the analysis to class actions, as they are either not present in class actions, or are adequately handled by other procedural devices.