Photo of Stephanie M. Batchelder

Stephanie M. Batchelder is a partner in the firm’s Products Liability and Complex Tort Litigation Group. Her practice has a primary focus on insurance defense, products liability and asbestos-related toxic tort cases in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

supreme-court-building-1209701_1280In a groundbreaking decision that follows closely on the heels of its jurisdictional decision in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. __ (May 30, 2017) (“Tyrrell”), the United States Supreme Court held that the California Supreme Court was wrong to let approximately 600 non-California residents join 86 state residents in a pharmaceutical claim against Bristol-Myers in which plaintiffs alleged that it misrepresented the risk of heart attacks and strokes associated with the use of its blood thinner, Plavix. In overturning the decision of the California Court, the Supreme Court premised its holding on the fact that the out-of-state plaintiffs had not shown enough of a connection between their alleged injuries and the company’s activities in California.

As previously reported, in an effort to find a way around the restrictions imposed on a court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daimler decision,  the California Supreme Court used specific personal jurisdiction as a tool to enlarge the Court’s power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation.  In Bristol-Myers Squibb, the California Supreme Court expressly held that Bristol-Myers Squibb was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in California, as its contacts with the state were not substantial enough to render it “at home” in the jurisdiction. It held, however, that specific personal jurisdiction existed over Bristol-Myers Squibb in California—even for plaintiffs who were not injured in California—based on its “purposeful availment” of the benefits and privileges of the laws of the State of California as a result of its “nationwide marketing, promotion and distribution [that] created a substantial nexus between the non-resident plaintiffs’ claims and the company’s contacts in California . . . .” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, No. S221038, 2016 WL 4506107 (Cal. Aug. 29, 2016).

In the Supreme Court’s June 19, 2017 opinion, it reversed the California Supreme Court by a vote of 8-1. It made clear that specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” If a state has no “legitimate interest” in particular claims, a defendant should not be forced to submit to the coercive power of the state with respect to those claims. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, et al., 582 U.S. ___, ____ (2017) (slip op. at 6). The Supreme Court explicitly held that specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. Id. When there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State. Id. at ­­­___ (slip op. at 7).  Applying that requirement, the Court found that California could not exercise specific jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers Squibb with respect to non-residents’ claims because: (1) the non-residents did not claim to have suffered harm in California; and (2) all the conduct giving rise to the non-residents’ claims occurred
Continue Reading

Lady JusticeEver since the United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), in which the Court held that general personal jurisdiction exists over a corporation only where the corporation is fairly regarded as “at home,” many plaintiffs and state courts have attempted to distinguish Daimler in an effort to expand the boundaries of a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. It should come as no surprise then that the U.S. Supreme Court, with five personal jurisdiction cases before it and its Daimler decision seemingly under attack, ultimately decided to grant review of two such cases in 2017: BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. The Superior Court of San Francisco County, which attack the Daimler holding from very different perspectives.

As you may recall from your first year law school basics, personal jurisdiction requires, among other things, that the “the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).  This can be established through either specific jurisdiction, where the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state which directly relate to the underlying controversy, or general jurisdiction, where “the [ defendant’s] affiliations with the [forum s]tate are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum [s]tate.” Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 748-49, 760.

BNSF Railway, begs the question as to whether a state court may decline to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler, as The Montana Supreme Court directly challenged the limitations on general personal jurisdiction established by the Daimler Court. It did so by holding that the Federal Employers Liability Act (“FELA”) essentially creates an exception to the “at home” requirements of Daimler.  The plaintiffs in BNSF Railway are two employees who seek damages from the company pursuant to FELA, which provides railroad employees with a federal cause of action for personal injuries caused by their employer’s negligence. Neither plaintiff resides in Montana, nor did the injuries occur in Montana. Yet, plaintiffs brought suit in Montana. Under Daimler, BNSF should not have been considered “at home” in Montana, as it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Texas. Despite these facts, the Montana Supreme Court held that Montana courts could exercise general jurisdiction over BNSF.  The Montana Supreme Court reasoned that Section 56 of FELA allows a plaintiff to bring suit in any federal district court in which the defendant does business, and also confers concurrent jurisdiction over FELA suits to state courts. As such, the Court reasoned that state courts should have general jurisdiction in FELA matters over defendants in any state in which the defendant did business.  Tyrrell v. BNSF Ry. Co., 373 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2016).

As previously reported, in Bristol-Myers Squibb the California Supreme Court took a different approach to challenging the limits of the exercise of personal jurisdiction. 
Continue Reading

A deadly Listeria outbreak has swept across the United States in recent weeks, sickening at least 29 people and taking the lives of three.  This latest tragedy is reportedly linked to the sale of commercially produced, prepackaged caramelized apples. If recent media reports are accurate, the situation highlights the devastation a single breach in sanitation protocol can thrust on an otherwise remarkable wholesale and retail food distribution system in the United States. The situation also serves to remind food growers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers alike that exposure to liability for food-borne illnesses today goes well beyond civil fines and damages and is increasingly subject to criminal prosecution.

Listeria outbreaks are rare but dangerous. In 2011, listeria in cantaloupes killed 33 people and sickened 147 in 28 states, according to the CDC. In 2012, 22 people were infected and four died in an outbreak attributed to a brand of ricotta cheese imported from Italy. Besides the potential civil suits, one of which has already been filed in connection with the caramel apple outbreak (James Raymond Frey, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Shirlee Jean Frey, et al. v. Safeway, Inc., et al., No. CISCV180721 (Cal. Sup. Santa Cruz Co.)), food manufacturers should be aware of the unprecedented criminal prosecutions of food-industry defendants in multiple states.

In 2010 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began warning the food industry, that federal criminal laws would be enforced in the fooded safety industry, including the potential liability for food industry executives for the shipment of contaminated food, even though it was outside of the executive’s knowledge or consent. In light of the strict liability laws, U.S. v. Eric Jensen and Ryan Jensen resulted in Colorado’s Jensen brothers each serving  six months of home confinement in 2014 after pleading guilty to six of the “strict liability” federal criminal misdemeanors. The only evidence necessary was that the company distributed cantaloupes with the deadly pathogen; knowledge of the contamination was irrelevant.

Similarly, in United States v. Parnell, No. 13-cr-12 (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Ga., Albany Div.) the food company employees are awaiting sentencing for “strict liability” misdemeanors because their contaminated eggs became part of interstate commerce. In addition, the recent jury trial and conviction of former Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) officers and managers has captured the attention of the entire food industry.

Most recently, criminal charges have been brought against the owners and employees of a pharmaceutical company linked to the deadly 2012 meningitis outbreak. Two of the fourteen arrested were the owners of the company, each of whom were charged with second-degree murder and racketeering in connection with the 64 deaths that resulted from the outbreak. The 131 count indictment alleges that the employees were aware that they were producing medication in an unsafe and unsanitary manner, yet distributed it anyway.

Although the requisite knowledge standard of those involved with the meningitis outbreak differs from the strict liability standard for those in connection with the listeria outbreak,
Continue Reading