Official -Subject to Final Review - Home - Supreme Court ...

Official - Subject to Final Review

1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

3

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,

4

5

Petitioner

:

:

v.

No. 16-466

:

6

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

:

7

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, ET AL.,

:

8

Respondents.

9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

:

10

Washington, D.C.

11

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

12

13

The above-entitled matter came on for oral

14

argument before the Supreme Court of the United States

15

at 10:08 a.m.

16

APPEARANCES:

17

NEAL K. KATYAL, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the

18

19

Petitioner.

RACHEL P. KOVNER, ESQ., Assistant to the Solicitor

20

General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;

21

for United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the

22

Petitioner.

23

24

THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ., Bethesda, Md.; on behalf of

the Respondents.

25

Alderson Reporting Company

Official - Subject to Final Review

2

1

C O N T E N T S

2

ORAL ARGUMENT OF

3

NEAL K. KATYAL, ESQ.

4

PAGE

On behalf of the Petitioner

5

ORAL ARGUMENT OF

6

RACHEL P. KOVNER, ESQ.

7

For United States, as amicus curiae,

8

supporting the Petitioner

9

10

11

20

ORAL ARGUMENT OF

THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.

On behalf of the Respondents

12

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF

13

NEAL K. KATYAL, ESQ.

14

3

On behalf of the Petitioner

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Alderson Reporting Company

30

61

Official - Subject to Final Review

3

1

P R O C E E D I N G S

2

(10:08 a.m.)

3

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:

We will hear

4

argument first this morning in Case 16-466,

5

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. The Superior Court of

6

California.

7

8

9

10

11

12

Mr. Katyal.

ORAL ARGUMENT OF NEAL K. KATYAL

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR. KATYAL:

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice,

and may it please the Court:

The California Supreme Court ruled that

13

hundreds of plaintiffs who were not prescribed a drug in

14

California, who did not take it in California, who

15

lacked any injury in California, and who had no other

16

connection to California could sue in California.

17

The court reasoned there was a sliding scale

18

whereby the defendant's other conduct with other

19

Californians could establish specific jurisdiction.

20

Those concepts have some footing in the law, but that

21

footing is limited to general jurisdiction, which is

22

lacking here, and this Court has never permitted

23

specific jurisdiction in such circumstances, which is

24

presumably why Respondents don't bother defending the

25

California Supreme Court.

Alderson Reporting Company

Official - Subject to Final Review

4

1

Instead, they mint a whole new test, never

2

before seen by any court whereby an ad hoc

3

reasonableness inquiry with any number of undetermined

4

balancing factors will create jurisdiction.

5

JUSTICE KENNEDY:

You've conceded that

6

there's fair play and substantial justice.

7

not quite, perhaps, takes away the due process argument,

8

which basically has to be the argument that you're

9

making here.

10

MR. KATYAL:

That almost,

Justice Kennedy, I don't think

11

that's actually what we conceded.

12

that the reasonability -- reasonableness inquiry is with

13

respect to the third kind of safety valve factor.

14

didn't make the argument with respect to the third

15

prong, but we absolutely did make the argument that

16

jurisdiction here was unreasonable below.

17

What we did say is

We

At pages 4 and 18 in the court of -- in the

18

California Supreme Court brief, we made very clear.

19

said it would, quote, "Offend basic notions of

20

federalism and fairness" at page 4.

21

said, "Instead of achieving jurisdictional fairness,

22

their rule would distribute their burden of defending

23

mass torts in a lopsided way."

24

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:

25

MR. KATYAL:

At page 18, we

I'm sorry.

But we absolutely did.

Alderson Reporting Company

We

Official - Subject to Final Review

5

1

2

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:

How is it

unreasonable --

3

MR. KATYAL:

4

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:

5

Now, you're not fighting that pending

How to --- to have -- yes.

6

jurisdiction permits a court to take multiple claims of

7

damages nationwide, or even worldwide, and even

8

unrelated causes of action and bring them to a

9

jurisdiction, correct, by one plaintiff?

10

So you're not

-- you're not claiming that that offends due process.

11

MR. KATYAL:

Pending jurisdiction, at least

12

personal jurisdiction, is only applied in some Federal

13

courts by dint of common law.

14

fighting.

15

State court anywhere that pendent personal jurisdiction.

16

We're absolutely

I mean, it's not the law in any court -- any

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:

So how do you deal -- so

17

you're saying that pendent jurisdiction for claims that,

18

in some way, are connected violates due process?

19

MR. KATYAL:

20

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:

21

MR. KATYAL:

22

23

We're saying -Do you go any further?

We're saying that there has to

be a causation between the underlying cause of action.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:

24

individual action.

25

jurisdiction on every level.

With every single

And so you're destroying pendent

Alderson Reporting Company

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download