## Facts

- An Illinois physician practice alleged it received two unsolicited fax advertisements from IQVIA that lacked the statutorily required opt-out notice.
- The plaintiff brought a putative nationwide class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), seeking relief for recipients of similar faxes sent during the prior four years.
- IQVIA, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania, moved to strike the nationwide class definition, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction over claims of non-Illinois class members under Bristol-Myers Squibb.
- The district court struck the nationwide class allegations, reasoning that each unnamed class member needed to establish specific personal jurisdiction based on IQVIA’s Illinois-related contacts.
- The Seventh Circuit granted interlocutory review under Rule 23(f).

## Issues

1. Whether Bristol-Myers Squibb requires a federal court hearing a Rule 23 nationwide class action under a federal statute to have specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to the claims of each unnamed class member.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the order striking the nationwide class definition and remanded.
- The court held Bristol-Myers does not apply to a nationwide class action filed in federal court under a federal statute.
- The court concluded the district court erred by requiring forum-related minimum contacts for IQVIA as to each absent class member’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- In a federal Rule 23 class action asserting federal claims, personal jurisdiction analysis centers on the defendant’s contacts with the forum as they relate to the named plaintiff’s claim.
- Absent class members are not treated as full parties for many purposes; Rule 23 permits representation once the named plaintiff satisfies Rule 23(a) and (b).
- Bristol-Myers addressed specific jurisdiction limits in a state-court mass action and did not decide whether absent class members in a Rule 23 class action must independently establish personal jurisdiction.
- Extending Bristol-Myers to require claim-by-claim jurisdiction for unnamed class members would conflict with the representative structure of Rule 23 and would substantially restrict nationwide federal-statutory class actions.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that a federal court’s personal jurisdiction in a nationwide Rule 23 action under a federal statute is assessed based on the named plaintiff’s claim, so Bristol-Myers does not require specific jurisdiction over the defendant for each absent class member’s claim.


Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., 953 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2020)