•  
  •  
 

Cardozo Law Review

Abstract

This Note discusses the potential negative effects that BMS can have on future plaintiffs' ability to sue large corporations in states where the corporations have a major presence but in which they are neither incorporated nor headquartered. Part I outlines the history of personal jurisdiction case law. Part II looks to the different approaches that the majority and dissenting opinions in BMS took in examining the question of jurisdiction. It also looks at the sliding scale test that the California Supreme Court used to allow the nonresident plaintiffs to sue within the state's courts. Section II.B then considers the effect that BMS has had on lower courts thus far by looking at how various federal district and state courts have applied the decision, particularly in the context of claims involving false advertising and medical mass torts. It continues by examining cases where judges have distinguished BMS and the potential openings this can leave for future plaintiffs to eventually challenge BMS at the Supreme Court. Part III proposes an expansion of personal jurisdiction principles to allow courts to hear cases in which plaintiffs sue corporations in a state that has a proximate connection to the harm alleged and an analysis for when and how to analyze the proximate connection. This Part also discusses the complexities of third-party connections to a state and concerns about forum shopping, arguing that the former can be enough of a connection despite Walden v. Fiore, and that the latter is a persistent problem that no amount of limiting access to courts can seriously prevent.

Disciplines

Constitutional Law | Fourteenth Amendment | Jurisdiction | Law | Torts

Download

Share

COinS