•  
  •  
 

Tennessee Law Review

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Traditionally, scholars and courts alike have thought of joinder of parties and personal jurisdiction as separate questions. Party joinder determined who should be in the lawsuit, whereas personal jurisdiction determined what power courts could exercise over those parties-a question that invariably becomes more complicated when more parties are added to the lawsuit. The Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court forced a reckoning between these two areas of civil procedure. In Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Court irreversibly connected specific personal jurisdiction and party joinder by holding that non-Californian plaintiffs could not be part of a California lawsuit because their claims did not share a connection with the defendant's forum contacts, thus concluding that California courts lacked specific jurisdiction over the defendant. The Bristol-Myers Squibb ruling, it appears, could affect party joinder in two ways: (1) aggregation of plaintiffs would be less available than before because specific personal jurisdiction would now bar joinder; or (2) aggregation of plaintiffs would be unaffected because it has always been true that personal jurisdiction could bar joinder. This Article articulates a third, hybrid option, concluding that any diminishing effect on joinder after Bristol-Myers Squibb is not the result of any changes to specific personal jurisdiction or party joinder doctrines, but instead is the natural and practical consequence of defendants no longer waiving personal jurisdiction challenges.

This Article analyzes both the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and key Supreme Court decisions on both party joinder and specific personal jurisdiction. In the process, the Article identifies a longstanding connection between the two doctrines that Bristol-Myers Squibb merely clarified: a lawsuit must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum, meaning that each plaintiffs lawsuit must share a connection with the defendant's forum contacts. This Article also analyzes both the perceived and actual effect of Bristol-Myers Squibb on plaintiff joinder and concludes that (1) Bristol-Myers Squibb has not had any discernable effect on plaintiff aggregation in traditional, non-class cases; and (2) any decrease in aggregation in recent years was merely a result of increased personal jurisdiction objections by defendants after Bristol-Myers Squibb highlighted the connection between jurisdiction and party joinder.

Publication Date

2022

Download

Share

COinS