Defeating Class Certification: Using Personal Jurisdiction to Defeat Litigation Tourism
Navigating the District Court Split Over Bristol-Meyers Squibb; Grounds for Successful Motions; Preserving the Issue for Appeal
Course Details
- smart_display Format
On-Demand
- signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level
- work Practice Area
Class Action and Other Litigation
- event Date
Thursday, December 5, 2019
- schedule Time
1:00 PM E.T.
- timer Program Length
90 minutes
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
This CLE course will discuss using personal jurisdiction arguments after the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (BMS) to defeat class actions pre-certification. The panel will address recent cases applying BMS to class actions and discuss successful strategies and tactics for raising and preserving personal jurisdiction arguments.
Mr. Fredrich focuses his practice on complex civil litigation, with an emphasis in financial services matters and consumer class and individual action defense. He represents banks, lenders, loan services, investors and other financial institutions in state and federal court proceedings, at both the trial and appellate levels. Mr. Fredrich has significant experience litigating claims arising under the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as well as claims based on state law regulating debt collection, loan servicing, loss mitigation, and foreclosure practices. Mr. Fredrich also has significant experience advising clients on regulatory and compliance matters.
Mr. Ruttinger develops and implements strategies for clients in class action, commercial and complex litigation across the country. He advises and advocates for clients at all phases of a case, from pre-litigation consulting on regulatory issues, to dispositive and class-certification motions, to appeals. Mr. Ruttinger regularly handles complicated, high-stakes issues for clients ranging from challenges to class certification to developing strategies for seeking summary judgment and excluding unreliable expert opinions. He is a frequent writer and speaker on the application of class action and product liability laws to emerging technologies.
Ms. Stepanyan’s practice focuses on the defense of class actions and other complex litigation, including actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, as well as related claims in federal and state courts. Ms. Stepanyan also counsels clients with regard to compliance and regulatory matters and has defended proceedings commenced by government agencies. She has represented a broad range of companies, including banks and other lending institutions, chemical manufacturing companies, and other Fortune 500 companies.
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.
- Recent trends and decisions
- Legal bases
- The legal standard
- Grounds for successful motions
- Preserving the issue for appeal
- Best practices
- Case studies
The panel will review these and other vital issues:
- When and how are personal jurisdiction arguments best brought?
- When is a "motion to strike" the appropriate vehicle to attack personal jurisdiction?
- What is the right procedural mechanism for attacking personal jurisdiction?
- What impact do these arguments have on individual and class claims?
- What standard of review do the various circuits apply when deciding whether to find personal jurisdiction?
- What are some best practices for defense counsel for leveraging these motions?
