State v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the
Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is
assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule
23-112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may
contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Filing Date: July 6, 2023

3 No. S-1-SC-39381

4 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
5 HECTOR H. BALDERAS, Attorney General,

6 Plaintiff-Respondent,

7 v.

8 GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; and
9 GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, f/k/a
10 BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB &
11 GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC,

12 Defendants-Petitioners,

13 and

14 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB and
15 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,

16 Defendants.

17 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
18 Maria Sanchez-Gagne, District Judge

19 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
20 Brian L. Moore, Assistant Attorney General
21 P. Cholla Khoury, Assistant Attorney General
22 Santa Fe, NM

23 Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C.
24 Marcus J. Rael, Jr.
25 Albuquerque, NM
1 for Respondent

2 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.,
3 Michelle A. Hernandez
4 Elizabeth A. Martinez
5 Albuquerque, NM

6 Kirkland & Ellis LLP
7 Jay Lefkowitz
8 Devora W. Allon
9 New York, NY;

10 James F. Hurst
11 Nick Wasdin
12 Michael LeFevour
13 Chicago, IL

14 Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.
15 Andrew G. Schultz
16 Albuquerque, NM

17 for Petitioners

18 Sidley Austin LLP
19 William R. Levi
20 Jose M. Valle
21 Washington, DC

22 for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
23 and The American Tort Reform

24 YLAW, P.C.
25 Matthew L. Connelly
26 Albuquerque, NM

27 for Amicus Curiae Association for Accessible Medicines

2
1 DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REMAND

2 PER CURIAM.

3 {1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court pursuant to Rule 12-502

4 NMRA (governing “petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari seeking review

5 of decisions of the Court of Appeals”) upon Defendants Gilead Sciences Inc., Gilead

6 Sciences, LLC, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s appeal from the Court of

7 Appeals order in A-1-CA-40177 (Apr. 8, 2022) denying Defendants’ applications

8 for interlocutory review of the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss for

9 lack of personal jurisdiction that were filed pursuant to both Rule 12-203 NMRA

10 and the district court’s certification order under NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-4 (1999);

11 {2} WHEREAS, the district court may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction

12 over Defendants unless the court determines that there are sufficient minimum

13 contacts between Defendants and the State of New Mexico and that the exercise of

14 such jurisdiction would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial

15 justice, see NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-16 (1971) (providing for long-arm

16 jurisdiction over nonresident defendants); Chavez v. Bridgestone Ams. Tire

17 Operations, LLC, 2022-NMSC-006, ¶ 23, 503 P.3d 332 (noting that the “primary

18 focus” of a court’s specific personal jurisdictional inquiry is “case-linked and

3
1 extends only to claims that arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the

2 forum” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted));

3 {3} WHEREAS, Defendants have contested the exercise of specific personal

4 jurisdiction in this case and have come forward with affidavits in support of their

5 position;

6 {4} WHEREAS, “[w]hen a party contests the existence of personal jurisdiction

7 under Rule 1-012(B)(2) and accompanies its motion with affidavits or depositions,

8 . . . the party resisting such motion may not stand on its pleadings and must come

9 forward with affidavits or other proper evidence detailing specific facts

10 demonstrating that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, Doe v. Roman

11 Catholic Diocese of Boise, Inc., 1996-NMCA-057, ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 738, 918 P.2d

12 17;

13 {5} WHEREAS, the determination of whether there are sufficient minimum

14 contacts between Defendants and the State of New Mexico to support the exercise

15 of specific personal jurisdiction in this case may require additional factual

16 development;

17 {6} WHEREAS, Court rules and New Mexico Statutes govern the procedural

18 issues and the related questions before us in this case;

4
1 {7} WHEREAS, this Court may exercise discretion under Rule 12-405(B) to

2 dispose of a case by nonprecedential order;

3 {8} WHEREAS, Chief Justice C. Shannon Bacon, Senior Justice Michael E.

4 Vigil, Justice David K. Thomson, Justice Julie J. Vargas, and Justice Briana H.

5 Zamora having considered the briefs and being otherwise fully informed on the

6 issues and applicable law;

7 {9} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the

8 district court so that the parties may conduct limited discovery on the issue of

9 whether the district court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over

10 Defendants in this matter;

11 {10} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon completion of discovery, the district

12 court shall enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether the court may exercise

13 specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this matter, shall explain the

14 standard applied by the court in reaching its decision by explaining how its decision

15 conforms with the U.S. Supreme Court’s discussion of specific jurisdiction in Ford

16 Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021).

17 {11} IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19 C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

5
1
2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

3
4 DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

5
6 JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

7
8 BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice

6