GlaxoSmithKline v. S.C. (Ahrens)

Case Updates

The U.S. Chamber, leading a coalition representing the Civil Justice Association of California and 33 California Chambers of Commerce, asked the California Supreme Court to grant GlaxoSmithKline's petition for review and reverse a lower court's denial of GSK's forum non conveniens motion. In its letter supporting review, the U.S. Chamber argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the cases based on inconvenient forum. Rather, the trial court improperly permitted plaintiff's lawyers to file thousands of additional suits by non-California plaintiffs with no meaningful connection to California against GSK in California court at the eleventh hour, after the court had resolved almost all of the cases then pending against the manufacturer. Not only were these additional cases filed late, but each of these cases raised distinct issues requiring witnesses and evidence from the plaintiffs' home states. The U.S. Chamber’s amicus brief argued that the interests of justice and the efficient management of judicial resources dictate that these suits be dismissed and brought in more convenient forums. In addition, the U.S. Chamber’s amicus brief urged the California Supreme Court to correct the trial court's misuse of California's JCCP (Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceeding) procedure to ensure that a single California court does not become an open world forum for thousands of new non-California claims by non-California residents, further draining the resources of California courts and taxpayers.