Defeating Class Certification: Using Personal Jurisdiction to Defeat Litigation Tourism

Description

While the Supreme Court's decision in BMS curtailed the reach of litigation tourists in multi-plaintiff litigation, it did not provide that its holding applies to class actions. District courts are divided in its application to unnamed, nonresident plaintiffs in class actions. Recently, federal courts have tended to reject the exercise of personal jurisdiction over claims of unnamed, nonresident class members where a class cannot be certified.

California's federal courts have led the way in declining to extend BMS in this context. These courts rely on a distinction between mass tort actions, where all plaintiffs are named and considered real parties-in-interest, and class actions when a plaintiff injured in the forum seeks to represent a class of similarly situated but unnamed individuals.

Federal courts in Illinois have rejected the exercise of personal jurisdiction over claims of unnamed, nonresident class members. These courts rely on the Supreme Court's emphasis that a sufficient nexus between the defendant, the forum, and the underlying claims is required. Federal courts in other jurisdictions generally align with the federal courts in Illinois and have applied BMS to class actions. But different courts have circumvented the application of BMS by holding that federalism concerns in BMS apply only to state court claims.

Listen as our authoritative panel of class action practitioners discusses recent trends regarding exercising personal jurisdiction after BMS. The speakers will address recent cases applying BMS to class actions and discuss successful strategies and tactics for raising and preserving personal jurisdiction arguments.