In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, the Supreme Court reiterated and clarified its tests for specific and general personal jurisdiction. In Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Court held that there must be a connection between the defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the plaintiff’s cause of action and that personal jurisdiction is—at the very least—a plaintiff-by-plaintiff analysis. In BNSF, the Supreme Court reiterated that a corporation is subject to general or all-purpose jurisdiction only where it is at home, and that—absent exceptional circumstances—a corporation is only at home where it is incorporated and headquartered. Just as importantly, BNSF emphasized that the at-home test applied to all assertions of general jurisdiction over a company—its announcement of the at-home test in Daimler AG v. Bauman was not limited to its specific facts.
Although Bristol-Myers Squibb and BNSF will likely put an end to the worst forum-shopping abuses by plaintiffs, they leave many questions unanswered. Just how much of a connection between the forum and the claims is necessary for specific jurisdiction? What will a plaintiff-by-plaintiff approach to specific jurisdiction mean for nationwide class actions and aggregated actions? And can a company be subject to general jurisdiction anywhere other than where it is headquartered and incorporated?
Sean Marotta will discuss these and other questions, surveying the personal-jurisdiction landscape after Bristol-Myers Squibb and BNSF.
Featuring:
Sean Marotta, Senior Associate, Hogan Lovells

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.