Mark David Mcpherson (Ca Sbn 307951) Morrison & Foerster Llp Jessica .
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 1 of 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MARK DAVID MCPHERSON (CA SBN 307951) mmcpherson@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 JESSICA KAUFMAN (ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE) jkaufman@mofo.com STEVEN RAPPOPORT (ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE) srappoport@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212.468.8000 11 Attorneys for Defendants McKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. McKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES McKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C. McKINSEY HOLDINGS, INC. 12 [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 9 10 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 18 IN RE: MCKINSEY & CO., INC. NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE CONSULTANT LITIGATION 19 20 This Document Relates to: 21 Cases Listed in Appendix A 22 23 Case No. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK) McKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge: March 31, 2022 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 6, 17th Floor Hon. Charles R. Breyer 24 25 26 27 28 MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 2 of 44 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 1 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 31, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as 4 the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge, in 5 Courtroom 6, 17th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San 6 Francisco, CA 94102, Defendants McKinsey & Company, Inc., McKinsey & Company, Inc. 7 United States, McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C., and McKinsey Holdings, Inc. 8 (collectively, “McKinsey”) will and do hereby move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaints in the cases 9 set forth in Appendix A. 10 11 12 This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over McKinsey in these cases. This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum 13 of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Abhishek Jain in Support of McKinsey Defendants’ 14 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the Declaration of Gretchen Scheidler in 15 Support of McKinsey Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, all other 16 pleadings and papers on file herewith, and such other arguments and other materials as may be 17 presented before the Motion is taken under submission. 18 Dated: December 23, 2021 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 19 20 21 22 23 24 By: /s/ Mark David McPherson MARK DAVID McPHERSON Attorneys for Defendants McKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. McKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES McKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C. McKINSEY HOLDINGS, INC. 25 26 27 28 MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 3 of 44 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITES. iii 4 ISSUE TO BE DECIDED. ix 5 I. INTRODUCTION . 1 6 II. BACKGROUND . 4 7 A. Parties . 4 8 B. McKinsey’s Engagements with Purdue . 5 9 C. McKinsey’s Other Alleged Engagements . 6 10 D. Evidence of the Locations of McKinsey’s Engagements . 7 11 E. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Concerning Personal Jurisdiction . 8 12 III. LEGAL STANDARD . 10 13 IV. ARGUMENT . 12 14 A. McKinsey Is Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in Any of the Subject States. . 12 15 B. McKinsey Is Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction in the Subject States. . 14 1. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. McKinsey Did Not “Purposefully Direct” Any Activities at the Subject States. . 15 a. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injuries in the Subject States Cannot Render McKinsey’s Conduct “Expressly Aimed” at Those States. . 15 b. McKinsey’s Clients’ Conduct in the Subject States Cannot Render McKinsey’s Conduct “Expressly Aimed” at Those States. . 17 c. Plaintiffs’ Allegations that McKinsey Should Have Foreseen Injuries in the Subject States Cannot Render McKinsey’s Conduct “Expressly Aimed” at Those States. . 18 d. Plaintiffs’ Allegations that McKinsey Conspired with Manufacturers Cannot Render McKinsey’s Conduct “Expressly Aimed” at Those States. . 22 2. Plaintiffs’ Claims Against McKinsey Do Not Arise from or Relate to McKinsey’s Activities in the Subject States. . 23 3. The Exercise of Jurisdiction over McKinsey in the Subject States Would Be Unreasonable. . 25 Any Request for Jurisdictional Discovery Should Be Denied. . 28 i MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 4 of 44 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 2 Page 3 V. CONCLUSION . 29 4 APPENDIX A . 31 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 5 of 44 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Abdulaziz v. Twitter, Inc., No. 19-CV-06694-LB, 2020 WL 6947929 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020) .13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Able Fund v. KPMG Accountants NV, 247 F. App’x 504 (5th Cir. 2007) .21 Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Cardinal Camera & Video Ctr., Inc., No. 15-cv-02991, 2015 WL 5834135 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2015) .20 Anaya v. Machines de Triage et Broyage, No. 18-cv-01731, 2019 WL 1083783 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2019).20 Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court 480 U.S. 102 (1987) .19 In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 07-MD-01871, 2012 WL 3205620 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2012). 11fn. 6 Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc. 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017).17 Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F.4th. 972 (9th Cir. 2021). 23, 24fn. 8, 26 B. Bullen v. CohnReznick, LLP, No. 1884-cv-03802-BLS2, 2019 WL 3331280 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 17, 2019) .21 Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000).16, 19 Baton v. Ledger SAS, No. 21-CV-02470-EMC, 2021 WL 5226315 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021).29 BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) .12, 13 Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008).29 Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1986).26 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) .14, 26 iii MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 6 of 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Brown v. 140 NM LLC, No. 17-cv-05782, 2019 WL 118425 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) .22 Caruth v. Int’l Psychoanalytical Ass’n, 59 F.3d 126 (9th Cir. 1995).27 CBC Framing, Inc. v. Flores, No. CV 08-00150, 2008 WL 11337545 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2008). 25fn. 9 CE Distribution, LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2004).26 Chirila v. Conforte, 47 F. App’x 838 (9th Cir. 2002) .22 Cisco Sys., Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 887 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .23 Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1993).27 Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. PTE., Ltd., 61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995).28 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) .12, 13, 14, 26 In re Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 870 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2017).10 In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:11-MD-2244-K, 2016 WL 9559912 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2016) .10 Dillon v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., No. 18-cv-3870, 2018 WL 3475529 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2018) .14 In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., No. C 02-1486, 2005 WL 2988715 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2005) .12 Elite Semiconductor, Inc. v. Anchor Semiconductor, Inc., No. 20-cv-06846, 2021 WL 3037701 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2021).23 Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. British-Am. Ins. Co., 828 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1987).27 Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Fresh Express, Inc., No. 19-cv-05611, 2020 WL 1244918 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020).20, 22 Fletcher Fixed Income Alpha Fund, Ltd. v. Grant Thornton LLP, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 718 (2016) .21 iv MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 7 of 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) . 24fn. 8 Gutierrez v. Givens, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 1998) .22 In re Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. CIV.A. H-10-171, 2011 WL 1232352 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2011). 11fn. 6 Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2007).19, 21 Hudson-Munoz, LLC v. U.S. Waffle Co., No. 19-cv-01960, 2019 WL 3548919 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019) .25 In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 3d 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .10, 12, 29 Karp v. Imagetrust GMBH & Co. KG, No. 16-cv-09228, 2017 WL 10399369 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017).16 Kellman v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .14 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) .10 In re Korean Air Lines Co., 642 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2011).12 Krypt, Inc. v. Ropaar LLC, No. 19-cv-03226, 2020 WL 3639651 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2020).22 Leetsch v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2001).27 Lexington Ins. Co. v. Hotai Ins. Co., 938 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2019).18 Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2014).13 McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988).29 Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007).27 Monterey Bay Mil. Hous., LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corp., No. 17-CV-04992, 2019 WL 4888693 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019). 25fn. 9 v MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 8 of 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2017).15 In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1118 (S.D. Cal. 2018) .14 Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006).12, 19 Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) .14 Picot v. Weston 780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015).24, 25 Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 14-cv-8390, 2016 WL 7177532 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) .11 Rocke v. Canadian Auto. Sport Club, 660 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1981).26 Rodriguez v. Reinhardt, No. 13-CV-05403, 2014 WL 12639965 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) .26 Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1991).27 Sanchez v. Bos. Scientific Corp., No. 12-cv-05762, 2014 WL 202787 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 17, 2014). 11fn. 6 Sangha v. Navig8 ShipManagement Priv. Ltd., 882 F.3d 96 (5th Cir. 2018).18 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004).15, 19, 25 Sciara v. Campbell, 840 F. App’x 920 (9th Cir. 2020) .17 Sharma v. Volkswagen AG, 524 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2021) . 24fn. 8, 28 Taub v. Parker Jewish Inst. for Health Care & Rehab., No. 18-cv-07491, 2019 WL 3292369 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2019).28 Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 1995).26, 28 Thakar v. Patel, No. 07-cv-1220, 2008 WL 11409564 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2008) .24, 25 vi MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 9 of 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp., 90 F.3d 1523 (10th Cir. 1996).21 Triple Up Ltd. v. Youku Tudou Inc., No. 17-7033, 2018 WL 4440459 (D.C. Cir. July 17, 2018) (per curiam) .18 Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2006).27 Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) . passim Wescott v. Reisner, No. 17-cv-06271, 2018 WL 2463614 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2018) .22 Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 33 N.Y.3d 523 (2019) .22 Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2017).20 Wonderful Co. LLC v. Nut Cravings Inc., No. 20-cv-11738, 2021 WL 3598859 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2021) .17, 19 In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:09-MD-02100-DRH, 2011 WL 1375011 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2011) . 11fn. 6 Yeager v. Airbus Grp. SE, No. 19-cv-01793, 2021 WL 750836 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2021) .18 Zawitz v. Star Magic, No. 20-cv-07121, 2021 WL 1788590 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2021) .16 20 Zoch v. Magna Seating (Germany) GmbH, 810 F. App’x 285 (5th Cir. 2020) .18 21 Statutes and Rules 22 Alaska Stat. § 09.05.015 . 9fn. 5 23 Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a) . 9fn. 5 24 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-124. 9fn. 5 25 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35 . 9fn. 5 26 Ind. R. Trial 4.4(A) . 9fn. 5 27 28 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 454.210 . 9fn. 5 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3201 . 9fn. 5 vii MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 10 of 44 1 Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-103 . 9fn. 5 2 Miss. Code Ann. § 13-3-57 . 9fn. 5 3 Mont. R. Civ. P. 4B . 9fn. 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-1-16 . 9fn. 5 Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2004 . 9fn. 5 Or. R. Civ. P. 4 . 9fn. 5 Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-2-225. 9fn. 5 Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-201 . 9fn. 5 Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1 . 9fn. 5 W. Va. Code § 56-3-33 . 9fn. 5 12 Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.185 . 9fn. 5 13 Wis. Stat. § 801.05 . 9fn. 5 14 Other Authorities 15 4 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1068 (4th ed. 2021) . 11fn. 7 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 viii MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 11 of 44 ISSUE TO BE DECIDED 1 2 1. Is McKinsey subject to personal jurisdiction in states where it neither is 3 incorporated nor maintains its principal place of business, and where it provided no advice 4 concerning sales, marketing, manufacturing, or distribution of opioids, merely because Plaintiffs 5 allege either that they were injured there, or that other third parties (not McKinsey itself) sold 6 opioids in Plaintiffs’ states? 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ix MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 12 of 44 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 In these consolidated cases, 548 Plaintiffs in 31 states have filed 98 cases, all claiming that 3 McKinsey should be held legally responsible for the opioid crisis, based on allegations that 4 McKinsey provided consulting services to certain opioid manufacturers. Plaintiffs’ complaints 5 purport to state more than two dozen claims, all but one of which are pleaded under state law, 6 such as claims for negligence, common law fraud, and public nuisance, as well as claims under 7 various states’ consumer protection or deceptive trade practices statutes. 8 9 While McKinsey looks forward to briefing why Plaintiffs’ claims against it fail as a matter of law, at this initial stage of the proceedings, McKinsey is filing two threshold motions to 10 winnow the group of Plaintiffs asserting claims against McKinsey. 1 First, in a companion motion, 11 McKinsey is moving to dismiss claims brought by political subdivision and similarly-situated 12 Plaintiffs from states with which McKinsey has already settled claims. And second, with this 13 motion, McKinsey seeks dismissal of claims brought by all Plaintiffs in or from 19 states— 14 Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawai’i, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, 15 Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West 16 Virginia, and Wisconsin 2—for lack of personal jurisdiction. 17 McKinsey is differently situated than defendants in opioid-related litigation pending 18 elsewhere. Most, if not all, of those defendants manufactured, distributed, or sold opioids across 19 the country and therefore may be subject to claims concerning opioid sales in all 50 states. 20 McKinsey, on the other hand, is a consulting firm that provides advice to clients in select 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 As noted in the parties’ Joint Status Conference Submission (ECF No. 240 at 2), the parties agreed that McKinsey reserves the right to move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaints on other grounds, including under Rule 12(b)(6)—an agreement also reflected in Pretrial Order No. 7: Initial Case Management Order (ECF No. 293 ¶¶ 8-9). 2 Cases filed by plaintiffs from Hawai’i have not yet been transferred to this MDL Proceeding, though McKinsey expects the cases to be transferred to this MDL Proceeding shortly. McKinsey’s motion seeks dismissal of any cases filed in the Subject States, or any cases filed directly in an MDL Proceeding that would be remanded to a Subject State at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings. McKinsey reserves the right to supplement this motion to seek dismissal of any subsequently filed or transferred cases from the Subject States or from other states in which McKinsey can similarly demonstrate, as it does in this motion, that it provided no advice concerning sales, marketing, manufacturing, or distribution of opioids. 1 MCKINSEY DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (SK)
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 313 Filed 12/23/21 Page 13 of 44 1 locations. McKinsey has never manufactured, distributed, or sold opioids in any state. Nor has 2 McKinsey ever had any interactions with any of the Plaintiffs in these cases concerning opioids— 3 much less made any representations to them about opioids. For that reason, McKinsey is not 4 subject to expansive nationwide personal jurisdiction in the same way that other defendants in 5 other opioid-related litigation may be. 6 The lack of personal jurisdiction over McKinsey in more than half of the states 7 represented in this MDL Proceeding is a crucial threshold issue. Any cases remaining at the 8 conclusion of pretrial proceedings will be remanded to their original forum states, requiring 9 McKinsey to defend itself at trial there—an inefficient (and unreasonable) result given that all of 10 the evidence pertaining to liability is located elsewhere. This motion therefore seeks to limit 11 where McKinsey perhaps later might be required to defend itself at trial—while also helping to 12 streamline this Court’s legal analysis for later Rule 12(b) motions, by significantly reducing the 13 number of states whose laws the parties will need to analyze. 14 To be clear, while McKinsey is moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in 19 15 states, McKinsey is not conceding that it is subject to jurisdiction in the remaining 12 states 16 currently represented in this MDL Proceeding. McKinsey has reserved its right to move to 17 dismiss claims brought against it in cases filed in other states at a later stage of these proceedings. 18 (See ECF No. 293 ¶ 8.) Although McKinsey may have had limited contacts with other states, 19 those contacts were neither relevant nor sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. But McKinsey 20 recognizes that such contacts may nonetheless create a fact issue at this stage of the litigation. By 21 contrast, the Court need not resolve any factual disputes to eliminate 62 cases from 19 states from 22 this MDL Proceeding. For now, therefore, McKinsey moves to dismiss the claims against it 23 brought in these 19 states. 24 As to these states, this motion presents only one legal question: is McKinsey subject to 25 personal jurisdiction in states where it neither is incorporated nor maintains its principal place of 26 business, and where it provided no advice concerning sales, marketing, manufacturing, or 27 dist
mckinsey & company, inc. mckinsey & company, inc. united states . mckinsey & company, inc. washington d.c. mckinsey holdings, inc. [additional counsel listed on signature page] united states district court northern district of california . in re: mckinsey & co., inc. national prescription opiate consultant litigation
Oct 05, 2020 · KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP LLP Howard Weitzman (SBN 38723) hweitzman@kwikalaw.com Jonathan P. Steinsapir (SBN 226281) jsteinsapir@kwikalaw.com Suann MacIsaac (SBN 205659) smacisaac@kwikalaw.com Aaron Liskin (SBN 264268) aliskin@kwikalaw.com Katherine T. Kleindienst (SBN 274423) kkle
COSTELLO SBN 91372, SHEILA JAMES KUEHL SBN 85162, JOHN E. B. MYERS SBN 91300, LISA C. IKEMOTO SBN 131396, SCOTT ALTMAN AND JANET . Davis 400 Mrak Hall Drive EDWARD IMWINKELRIED, SBN 45371 Davis, CA 95616-5201 University of California,
AARON J. FISCHER (SBN 247391) aaron.fischer@disabilityrightsca.org DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Facsimile: (510) 267-1201 JULIA E. ROMANO (SBN 260857) jromano@kslaw.com JENNIFER T. STEWART (SBN 298798) jstewart@kslaw.com STACY L. FOSTER (SBN 285544) sfoster@kslaw.com
Matthew 27 Matthew 28 Mark 1 Mark 2 Mark 3 Mark 4 Mark 5 Mark 6 Mark 7 Mark 8 Mark 9 Mark 10 Mark 11 Mark 12 Mark 13 Mark 14 Mark 15 Mark 16 Catch-up Day CORAMDEOBIBLE.CHURCH/TOGETHER PAGE 1 OF 1 MAY 16 . Proverbs 2—3 Psalms 13—15 Psalms 16—17 Psalm 18 Psalms 19—21 Psalms
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) MJacobs@mofo.com ESTHER KIM CHANG (CA SBN 258024) EChang@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street SanFrancisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 DAVID A. MANSPEIZER (NY SBN 4867602) DManspeizer@mofo.com MORRISON
Jul 30, 2020 · REX S. HEINKE (SBN 066163) ANDREW OELZ (SBN 216885) MARKOS C. GENERALES (SBN 324287) 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310-229-1000 Facsimile: 310-229-1001 E-mail: rheink
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT LLP Howard Weitzman (SBN 38723) hweitzman@kwikalaw.com . Dale F. Kinsella (SBN 63370) dkinsella@kwikalaw.com . Jonathan P. Steinsapir (SBN 226281) jsteinsapir@kwikalaw.com . Zachary T. Elsea (SBN 279252) zelsea@kwikalaw.com . 808 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor . Santa Monica, California 90401 .
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Amy C. Quartarolo (SBN 222144) amy.quartarolo@lw.com Adam S. Sieff (SBN 302030) adam.sieff@lw.com Harrison J. White (SBN 307790) . v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; JAMES N.
