State ex rel. Balderas v. Gilead Scis.

• Docket Number: S-1-SC-39381
• Decision Date: 06 July 2023
• Parties: STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. HECTOR H. BALDERAS, Attorney General, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; and GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, f/k/a BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB & GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, Defendants-Petitioners, and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

1

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. HECTOR H. BALDERAS, Attorney General, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; and GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, f/k/a BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB & GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, Defendants-Petitioners, and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants.

No. S-1-SC-39381

Supreme Court of New Mexico

July 6, 2023

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI Maria Sanchez-Gagne District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Brian L. Moore, Assistant Attorney General P.Cholla Khoury, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM

Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C. Marcus J. Rael, Jr. Albuquerque, NM for Respondent

Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Michelle A. Hernandez Elizabeth A. Martinez Albuquerque, NM Kirkland & Ellis LLP Jay Lefkowitz Devora W. Allon New York, NY; James F. Hurst Nick Wasdin Michael LeFevour Chicago, IL Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. Andrew G. Schultz Albuquerque, NM for Petitioners

Sidley Austin LLP William R. Levi Jose M. Valle Washington, DC for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and The American Tort Reform YLAW, P.C. Matthew L. Connelly Albuquerque, NM for Amicus Curiae Association for Accessible Medicines

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REMAND

PER CURIAM.

{¶1}WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA (governing "petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari seeking review of decisions of the Court of Appeals") upon Defendants Gilead Sciences Inc., Gilead Sciences, LLC, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'s appeal from the Court of Appeals order in A-1-CA-40177 (Apr. 8, 2022) denying Defendants' applications for interlocutory review of the district court's denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction that were filed pursuant to both Rule 12-203 NMRA and the district court's certification order under NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-4 (1999);

{¶2} WHEREAS, the district court may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants unless the court determines that there are sufficient minimum contacts between Defendants and the State of New Mexico and that the exercise of such jurisdiction would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, see NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-16 (1971) (providing for long-arm jurisdiction over nonresident defendants); Chavez v. Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC, 2022-NMSC-006, ¶ 23, 503 P.3d 332 (noting that the "primary focus" of a court's specific personal jurisdictional inquiry is "case-linked and extends only to claims that arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted));

{¶3} WHEREAS, Defendants have contested the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in this case and have come forward with affidavits in support of their position;

{¶4}WHEREAS, "[w]hen a party contests the existence of personal jurisdiction under Rule 1-012(B)(2) and accompanies its motion with affidavits or depositions, . . . the party resisting such motion may not stand on its pleadings and must come forward with affidavits or other proper evidence detailing specific facts demonstrating that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, Inc., 1996-NMCA-057, ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 738, 918 P.2d 17;

{¶5} WHEREAS, the determination of whether there are sufficient minimum contacts between Defendants and the State of New Mexico to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in this case may require additional factual development;

{¶6} WHEREAS, Court rules and New...