Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County

Supreme Court of California · 2016 · Civil Procedure

1 Cal. 5th 783 (2016)

Updated July 31, 2026

civpropersonal jurisdictiongeneral jurisdictionspecific jurisdictionminimum contactsat homepurposeful availmentsubstantial connection

Facts

BMS, a pharmaceutical manufacturer incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York City, was sued in coordinated California actions by 86 California residents and 592 nonresidents who alleged injuries from taking Plavix. BMS did not develop, manufacture, label, package, or direct Plavix marketing from California, but it maintained substantial California operations, including research and laboratory facilities, approximately 250 sales representatives, a Sacramento government-affairs office, and large Plavix sales in California. Plaintiffs alleged BMS engaged in negligent and wrongful conduct in the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and sale of Plavix, including false and misleading promotion. BMS moved to quash as to the nonresident plaintiffs, arguing California lacked personal jurisdiction over those claims.

Issue

May California courts exercise personal jurisdiction over BMS for the claims of nonresident plaintiffs alleging injuries from Plavix when BMS is not incorporated or headquartered in California, but has extensive California activities connected to the marketing, distribution, and research of the drug? More specifically, are BMS's California contacts sufficient for either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction over the nonresident plaintiffs' claims?

Rule

General jurisdiction over a corporation exists only when its contacts are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum, ordinarily in its state of incorporation or principal place of business, with only exceptional cases outside those paradigms. Specific jurisdiction exists when (1) the defendant purposefully directed or availed itself of the forum, (2) the plaintiff's claims arise out of or are related to the forum-directed activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable; under California's substantial connection test, a claim need not arise directly from forum contacts, and the intensity of forum contacts and the connection of the claim to those contacts are inversely related.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Redwood Therapeutics is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New Jersey. It operates two research labs in San Diego, employs 300 California sales representatives, and earns hundreds of millions of dollars annually from California sales of one of its drugs, but more than half of its U.S. workforce and central management remain in New Jersey.

An Oregon plaintiff sues Redwood Therapeutics in California on a claim unrelated to any California activity. Is a California court most likely to have general personal jurisdiction over Redwood Therapeutics?

Explanation. General jurisdiction exists only when the corporation is essentially at home in the forum, ordinarily where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business, absent an exceptional case. Large California sales, employees, and research facilities are insufficient when the corporation's activities nationwide show California is not a surrogate headquarters. Plaintiff residency is not the reason general jurisdiction fails here. (Derived from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2016).)