General Jurisdiction; Specific Jurisdiction.

A non-resident of a California drug manufacturer is presently in a coordinated proceeding involving an alleged defective drug in a California superior court by concession. Identical defect claims have also been brought by non-residents of California in the same proceeding, but the manufacturer moved to quash service regarding the non-residents, claiming lack of persona jurisdiction. The non-resident plaintiffs contend California has jurisdiction, whether it be general [jurisdiction over claims unrelated to the forum state] or specific [based upon the relationship of the defendant and California]. The trial court denied the motion based on its conclusion California has general jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S.Ct. 746, [187 L.Ed.2d 624], which limited the application of general jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment. Upon a petition for extraordinary relief by the drug manufacturer, the appellate court concluded California does not have general jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the appellate court, applying the analysis of International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, [66 S.Ct. 154; 90 L.Ed. 95], concluded the drug manufacturer has engaged in substantial, continuous economic activity in California, including the sale of more than a billion dollars of the alleged defective drug in California, and that it is consistent with due process to require the drug manufacturer to defend the claims in the coordinated action along with the California resident plaintiffs. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Sup. Ct. (Bracy Anderson) (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 2; July 30, 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 605, [175 Cal.Rptr.3d 412].)