COURTS SHOULD NOT SUBSTITUTE PARTY STATUS FOR PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN CLASS ACTIONS
Since the US Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court in 2017, courts and litigants have grappled with a critical question: can a district court decide the claims of unnamed members of a class action if their claims do not arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts?
The Seventh Circuit – the first and only circuit court to address the question squarely – says “yes”. In Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., the court concluded that district courts do not need personal jurisdiction over unnamed class members’ claims because they are not considered “parties” for purposes of personal jurisdiction. Instead, a court needs personal jurisdiction only over the class representative’s claims.
In May 2020, the full Seventh Circuit declined to reconsider Mussat en banc, so it remains the rule in the Seventh Circuit for now. But should other circuits follow Mussat’s lead? We think not. Mussat’s party-status rationale simply does not support the conclusion that personal jurisdiction over unnamed class members’ claims is unnecessary.
Mussat’s facts are straightforward. IQVIA sent two faxes to the plaintiff – an Illinois resident – that lacked opt-out language required by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff sued IQVIA – a non-resident – in the Northern District of Illinois and sought to represent a nationwide class of persons who received similar unlawful faxes. But the class was not certified. Instead, the district court struck the plaintiff’s class allegations, finding that Bristol-Myers prevented it from exercising personal jurisdiction over the claims of absent class members harmed outside of Illinois.
Jan-Mar 2021 issue
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.