Rios v. Bayer Corp.

• Decision Date: 04 June 2020
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 125020,125021
• Citation: 2020 IL 125020,178 N.E.3d 1088,449 Ill.Dec. 237
• Parties: Christy RIOS et al., Appellees, v. BAYER CORPORATION et al., Appellants. Nichole Hamby et al., Appellees, v. Bayer Corporation et al., Appellants.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2020 IL 125020
178 N.E.3d 1088
449 Ill.Dec. 237

Christy RIOS et al., Appellees,
v.
BAYER CORPORATION et al., Appellants.

Nichole Hamby et al., Appellees,
v.
Bayer Corporation et al., Appellants.

Docket Nos. 125020
125021

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed June 4, 2020

178 N.E.3d 1090

W. Jason Rankin, of HeplerBroom LLC, of Edwardsville, and Virginia A. Seitz, Elizabeth C. Curtin, and Michelle A. Ramirez, of Sidley Austin LLP, of Chicago, for appellants.

Ann E. Callis, of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C., of Edwardsville, Holly Kelly Ennis, of Ennis & Ennis, P.A., of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and G. Sean Jez, George M. Fleming, and Jessica A. Kasischke, of Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P., of Houston, Texas, for appellees.

JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

449 Ill.Dec. 239

¶ 1 At issue in these consolidated interlocutory appeals is whether, consistent with the due process requirements of the Illinois Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, Illinois may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state

178 N.E.3d 1091

449 Ill.Dec. 240

defendant as to the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs for personal injuries suffered outside of Illinois from a device manufactured outside of Illinois. We hold that courts in Illinois may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction under these circumstances. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The device at issue is Essure, a type of permanent birth control for women. Essure originally was manufactured and developed by Conceptus, Inc., a California corporation. Defendants are Bayer Corporation, incorporated in Indiana with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania; Bayer Healthcare LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in New Jersey; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey; and Bayer Essure Inc., incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California until April 2016, when its principal place of business became New Jersey. We refer to defendants collectively as Bayer.

¶ 4 In 2013, Bayer bought Conceptus. Thereafter, it continued the postmarket requirements that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates for a Class III medical device, such as Essure. According to plaintiffs, Bayer marketed Essure as being safer and more effective than other forms of birth control. However, plaintiffs allege that Essure caused life-altering complications, such as debilitating pain, heavy bleeding that necessitated medication, and autoimmune disorders.

¶ 5 In July 2016, Christy Rios, a resident of Madison County, Illinois, and 94 other plaintiffs from 25 states filed a complaint "for personal injuries suffered as a result of being prescribed and implanted with the defective and unreasonably dangerous product Essure." In November 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. In relevant part, Bayer argued that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois regarding the claims of the nonresident plaintiffs. Two weeks later, Nichole Hamby, a resident of Madison County, Illinois, initiated a separate action against Bayer raising nearly identical claims to those raised in the Rios action. Hamby's lawsuit included 85 plaintiffs from 21 states. In December 2016, the Rios plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss.

¶ 6 In June 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California , 582 U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 198 L.Ed.2d 395 (2017). Three months later, Bayer moved to dismiss the Hamby complaint with prejudice. In part, defendants argued that, following Bristol-Myers , a court cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant as to the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs when the conduct giving rise to the claims did not occur in the forum state. The Hamby plaintiffs opposed defendants' dismissal motion.

¶ 7 Both the Hamby and Rios plaintiffs then filed first amended complaints. The causes of action in the complaints included negligence, strict products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and fraud. Plaintiffs alleged that (1) their devices were defectively manufactured, (2) they relied on false or misleading statements in Essure's promotional materials, (3) Bayer failed to adequately warn them and/or their physicians about the device's risks, and (4) their physicians were not adequately trained to perform the Essure procedure. According to plaintiffs, Illinois courts had specific personal jurisdiction over Bayer because it "used Illinois to develop, label, or work on the

178 N.E.3d 1092

449 Ill.Dec. 241

regulatory approval for Essure" and "created the Essure Accreditation Program and the marketing strategy for Essure in Illinois."

¶ 8 Bayer moved to dismiss the first amended complaints with prejudice. Defendants again argued that Illinois courts lacked specific personal jurisdiction as to the non-Illinois plaintiffs' claims. In response, plaintiffs insisted that the complained-about conduct occurred through defendants' contacts with Illinois. Plaintiffs asserted that Bayer conducted clinical trials in Illinois and used the state as a testing ground for its physician training program. Further, plaintiffs claimed that Bayer orchestrated a marketing campaign in Illinois that ultimately spread that misinformation about Essure nationwide. According to plaintiffs, these in-state activities authorized Illinois courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over defendants.¹

¶ 9 Although different trial judges were assigned to the Hamby and Rios lawsuits, they conducted a joint hearing in Madison County on defendants' motions to dismiss the first amended complaints. Roughly three months after the hearing, the courts issued orders denying defendants' motions. The trial courts determined that whether Illinois could exercise specific personal jurisdiction depended on whether (1) the corporate, nonresident defendants had purposefully directed their activities at the state, (2) plaintiffs' claims arose from or related to those contacts with Illinois, and (3) it would be reasonable for Illinois to exercise jurisdiction over defendants. The courts also recognized that plaintiffs bore the burden to establish a prima facie basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants under Illinois's long-arm statute.

¶ 10 The trial courts determined that they were required to follow M.M. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC , 2016 IL App (1st) 151909, ¶ 75, 406 Ill.Dec. 758, 61 N.E.3d 1026, where the appellate court ruled under analogous circumstances that Illinois had "an indisputable interest" in resolving litigation that stemmed, in part, from clinical trials held in Illinois by Illinois doctors on Illinois subjects. The trial courts ruled that Bayer "conducted a part of its general business in Illinois, and [p]laintiffs' claims arose out of the very [clinical] trials conducted, in part, in Illinois." As such, plaintiffs were found to have pled sufficient facts to establish the link between their claims and Illinois. Further, the trial courts concluded that Illinois had an interest in resolving this litigation and that it was not unreasonable to exercise jurisdiction over Bayer. Defendants petitioned for leave to appeal both cases under Rule 306(a)(3). Ill. S. Ct. R. 306(a)(3) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017).

178 N.E.3d 1093

449 Ill.Dec. 242

¶ 11 The appellate court recognized that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment limits a state's power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to those instances where the defendant had, at least, "minimum contacts" with the state. Hamby v. Bayer Corp. , 2019 IL App (5th) 180279-U, ¶ 12, 2019 WL 2327612 ; Rios v. Bayer Corp. , 2019 IL App (5th) 180278-U, ¶ 11, 2019 WL 2327653.² The court further evaluated whether jurisdiction was proper under Illinois's long-arm statute. Hamby , 2019 IL App (5th) 180279-U, ¶ 12 ; Rios , 2019 IL App (5th) 180278-U, ¶ 11. Under the relevant precedent, the appellate court concluded that it "must look to the conduct of Bayer that occurred in Illinois and whether the causes of action in the complaint arose from or were connected to its conduct in Illinois." Hamby , 2019 IL App (5th) 180279-U, ¶ 18 ; Rios , 2019 IL App (5th) 180278-U, ¶ 17.

¶ 12 The appellate court also found that defendants had purposefully availed themselves of Illinois. Hamby , 2019 IL App (5th) 180279-U, ¶ 20 ; Rios , 2019 IL App (5th) 180278-U, ¶ 19. It observed that "Bayer directly targeted and marketed in Illinois, conducted clinical trials in Illinois, contracted with Illinois physicians and facilities, and established a physician accreditation program in Illinois." Hamby , 2019 IL App (5th) 180279-U, ¶ 23 ; Rios , 2019 IL App (5th) 180278-U, ¶ 22. Consequently, the court found that Bristo...