AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the State of New Mexico, represented by the Attorney General, against Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Sciences, LLC (formerly known as Bristol-Meyers Squibb & Gilead Sciences, LLC), and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The core issue revolves around the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction by the district court over the Defendants, who have contested this jurisdiction. The Defendants supported their position with affidavits (para 3).

Procedural History

• A-1-CA-40177 (Apr. 8, 2022): The Court of Appeals denied Defendants’ applications for interlocutory review of the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Petitioners: Argued against the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in New Mexico, supporting their position with affidavits (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in this matter (para 9).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico ordered a remand to the district court for limited discovery on the issue of specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants (para 9).

Reasons

• Per C. Shannon Bacon, Chief Justice, Michael E. Vigil, Justice, David K. Thomson, Justice, Julie J. Vargas, Justice, and Briana H. Zamora, Justice: The decision to remand the case was based on the need for additional factual development to determine if there are sufficient minimum contacts between Defendants and the State of New Mexico to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction (paras 5, 9). The Court highlighted that when a party contests personal jurisdiction with affidavits or depositions, the opposing party cannot merely rely on pleadings but must present specific facts demonstrating jurisdiction (para 4). The remand for limited discovery was deemed necessary to resolve this issue, with instructions for the district court to enter an order upon completion of discovery, stating its conclusion on the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction and explaining how its decision aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s discussion of specific jurisdiction in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (paras 9-10).