Supreme Court Tightens Rules on Where Companies Can Be Sued

[SecularMotion]

Source: NY Times

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday tightened rules on where injury lawsuits may be filed, handing a victory to corporations by undercutting the ability of plaintiffs to bring claims in friendly courts in a case involving Texas-based BNSF Railway Co.

State courts cannot hear claims against companies when they are not based in the state or the alleged injuries did not occur there, the justices ruled.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/05/30/business/30reuters-usa-court-bnsf-rlwy-ptt.html

[heaven05]

1. it's starting, again

handing over the hard earned wages and rights of americans to the corporations by corrupt judges in the nation's highest court. In four years america, as a country of nominally free individuals, will be like nothing we have ever been FORCED to experience. It is, currently, a true study in evil men and women in charge of millions.

[Renew Deal]

3. Yes, the corrupt justices like Ginsburg and Kagan

[heaven05]

4. no, I DO NOT

include those names under corrupt. NO!!!!! I am sorry I did not clarify....my mistake and I DO NOT have to agree with their decisions, no matter what or who they may represent to americans. Bush jr and cheney will be eclipsed in their corporate friendly shenanigans by this administration and this SC. Period.

[Igel]

6. It's reasonable.

If the company's in one state, what you're suing over happened in a second state, why sue in a third state? Just because you think the judge is biased in your favor? Or the laws there make your pay-out sweeter?

Sorry. It's a decent decision.

[heaven05]

7. ok

we'll see.

[Renew Deal]

2. Sounds like a good decision

The only dissenter is Sotomayor. She only dissented in part.

[Hoyt]

5. Seems right to me as summarized by Justice Ginsburg.

"Writing for the majority on Tuesday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that even though BNSF has more than 2,000 miles (3,200 km) of track and 2,000 employees in Montana, it cannot be held liable for "claims like Nelson's and Tyrrell's that are unrelated to any activity occurring in Montana."

[geek tragedy]

8. anti-forum shopping decision, probably defensible nt

[Egnever]

9. I don't have a problem with that

It needs to be the same for other lawsuits as well though. There is one court in Texas in particular that is constantly chosen as a venue because of it's corporate friendly outlook.

[Massacure]

10. The Eastern District of Texas is a popular venue for patent trolls

The Eastern District isn't popular because it is corporate friendly, it is popular because it is more likely to rule in favor of a plaintiff than various other districts. It's actually been a big issue for corporations, because small hole in the wall entities will try to either purchase or file obscure patents and then turn around and sue corporations in the Eastern District of Texas. The targeted corporation either has to pony up money to the plaintiff in order to settle the case before trial, or send lawyers to Texas to defend themselves in court.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that patent lawsuits must be filed in the court district where the defendant resides. Now we have this ruling as well. It sounds like they are putting their foot down on forum shopping.

[Dr. Strange]

11. Yep.

Good article about such shenanigans here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130926/02410524662/judge-takes-patent-troll-with-sham-employee-forces-troll-to-defend-practice-before-jury.shtml

[Egnever]

12. My mistake you are of course correct.