Nationwide FLSA Lawsuits Just Got Harder—Here’s Why - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Universal Injunctions, Associational Standing, and Forum Shopping - Their Effects on Legal Challenges to Regulations
In its 2024 opinion in Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined a growing number of federal circuits to hold that would-be plaintiffs from out of state cannot join a...more
Over the past several years, many federal courts have weighed in on whether a key Supreme Court decision requires them to dismiss non-resident opt-in plaintiffs in federal wage and hour collective actions, and there is now...more
Executive Summary: The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) recently held that Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuits filed on behalf...more
In two decisions issued on the same day, the Sixth and Eighth Circuits recently joined many district courts across the country in holding that federal courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)...more
A defendant in a talc jury trial intends on appealing a recent verdict reached in a Missouri case involving twenty-two plaintiffs who claimed that the defendant’s talcum powder contained asbestos and that they developed...more
Following the Supreme Court’s landmark personal-jurisdiction decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb, federal district courts have continued to disagree about whether to apply the court’s holding to cases involving nationwide class...more
On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that has the potential to reshape the way class actions are litigated in courts throughout the country. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,...more
The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), remain unsettled. ...more
In June 2017, we wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) and how it would likely affect attempts by plaintiffs to pursue multi-state or nationwide class...more
The Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), is my pick for “2017 Class Action Practitioners’ Case of the Year”––and it’s not even a class case....more
Earlier this month, Judge Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois rejected a named plaintiff’s attempt to bring a nationwide class action, basing his decision on the Supreme Court’s decision last June in...more
• A judge in the Northern District of Illinois held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) is applicable to personal jurisdiction...more
The United States Supreme Court recently decided that “California courts lack specific jurisdiction to entertain the nonresidents’ claims.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16-466 (U.S. June 19,...more
A recent Supreme Court decision may allow defendants to avoid lawsuits in distant courts that have little or no connection to the lawsuit, especially in cases (such as mass actions) where the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs...more
As its term drew to a close, the Supreme Court handed down its latest decision on personal jurisdiction in a case entitled Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty. Over the last six years, the...more
The Supreme Court has put an end to a jurisdictional contrivance used by the plaintiffs’ bar to shop for a friendly state forum, even if neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant, nor the actionable conduct took place in those...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently reaffirmed the principle that there must be a direct connection between a forum state and the underlying controversy in order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over...more
In its two recent 8–1 decisions, BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the U.S. Supreme Court doubled down on its 2014 landmark personal jurisdiction ruling in Daimler AG v....more
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process restricts a state court’s power to exercise “general” (i.e. all-purpose) jurisdiction to hear any and all claims against a defendant. General jurisdiction exists only...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, et al., No. 16-466 (U.S. June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the narrow circumstances under which specific jurisdiction will...more
Nation’s highest court reverses California Supreme Court decision that extended the jurisdictional reach of state courts. In the 2016 case Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (Anderson), the California Supreme Court...more
In a decisive 8-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a theory of specific jurisdiction that would allow a state court to assert specific jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs whose claims were not...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently tightened the reins when it comes to state courts’ exercise of case-based, specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state companies. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of...more
This past Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court drastically changed the landscape of mass tort litigation. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the Court found that the State of California did not have...more
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court reinforced its narrow application of specific jurisdiction in mass tort proceedings in an 8-1 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California. In the class action...more