Supreme Court Tightens Specific Jurisdiction Rule With Potential Negative Impact to Future Plaintiffs.
In an opinion piece, noted Consitutional Law scholar Professor Erwin Chemerinsky opines that, in two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, plaintiffs' avenues of redress for injury have been significantly curtailed. In the second case, Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, Justice Sotomayor's dissent notes the difficulties the decision poses for future cases seeking to aggregate the claims of plaintiffs located in different states, which was no doubt the majority's intent. But this should trouble companies who might be sued as well as future plaintiffs. The prospect of facing multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions elevates defense costs as much as it dilutes the ability to bring larger class actions. See Professor Chemerinsky's article in the ABA Journal: Two end-of-term decisions close the courthouse doors to those who have been injured.