Shook Attorneys Examine Jurisdiction in Class Actions

Shook Partners Jim Muehlberger and Naoki Kaneko, with Associate Kyle Steingreaber, have authored "Courts Should Not Substitute Party Status for Personal Jurisdiction in Class Actions" for Corporate Disputes. The article discusses whether other courts should follow the Seventh Circuit's decision in Mussat v. IQVIA, in which it held that "district courts do not need personal jurisdiction over unnamed class members' claims because they are not considered 'parties' for the purposes of personal jurisdiction."

"We should call the party-status rationale what it is: improper ad hoc rulemaking," the authors argue. "Although effectively disregarded by the Seventh Circuit, Rule 4(k)(1)(A) 'link[s]' a district court's personal jurisdiction to service on a defendant 'subject to the jurisdiction of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.' So absent an explicit exception, a district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction must 'comport[]' with the Fourteenth Amendment's limitations on the forum state's courts. Rule 4(k)(1)(A) makes no exception for class actions, nor does Rule 23."