State v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Unpublished Opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 2 Filing Date: July 6, 2023 3 No. S-1-SC-39381 4 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. HECTOR H. BALDERAS, Attorney General, 6 7 Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 8 9 10 11 GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; and GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, f/k/a BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB & GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, 12 Defendants-Petitioners, 13 and 14 15 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 16 Defendants. 17 18 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI Maria Sanchez-Gagne, District Judge 19 20 21 22 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Brian L. Moore, Assistant Attorney General P. Cholla Khoury, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM 23 24 25 Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C. Marcus J. Rael, Jr. Albuquerque, NM 1 for Respondent 2 3 4 5 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Michelle A. Hernandez Elizabeth A. Martinez Albuquerque, NM 6 7 8 9 Kirkland & Ellis LLP Jay Lefkowitz Devora W. Allon New York, NY; 10 11 12 13 James F. Hurst Nick Wasdin Michael LeFevour Chicago, IL 14 15 16 Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. Andrew G. Schultz Albuquerque, NM 17 for Petitioners 18 19 20 21 Sidley Austin LLP William R. Levi Jose M. Valle Washington, DC 22 23 for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and The American Tort Reform 24 25 26 YLAW, P.C. Matthew L. Connelly Albuquerque, NM 27 for Amicus Curiae Association for Accessible Medicines 2 DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REMAND 1 2 PER CURIAM. 3 {1} 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} 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 WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court pursuant to Rule 12-502 WHEREAS, the district court may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction 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} 4 jurisdiction in this case and have come forward with affidavits in support of their 5 position; 6 {4} 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} 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} 18 issues and the related questions before us in this case; WHEREAS, Defendants have contested the exercise of specific personal WHEREAS, “[w]hen a party contests the existence of personal jurisdiction WHEREAS, the determination of whether there are sufficient minimum WHEREAS, Court rules and New Mexico Statutes govern the procedural 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} 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} 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 WHEREAS, Chief Justice C. Shannon Bacon, Senior Justice Michael E. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the 10 Defendants in this matter; 11 {10} 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} 18 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon completion of discovery, the district IT IS SO ORDERED. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.