A group of plaintiffs, most of whom are not Massachusetts residents sued BMS in a Mass State court, alleging that the company's drug, Plavix, had damaged their health. BMS is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, and it maintains substantial operations in both New York and New Jersey. Although it engages in business activities in Massachusetts and sells Plavix there, BMS did not develop, create marketing strategies for, manufacture, label package, or work in regulatory approval in the Commonwealth. And the nonresident plaintiffs did not allege that they obtain Plavix from a Mass. Store, or that they were treated for their injuries in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Superior Court judge denied BMS's motion to dismiss the service of summons on the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court ruled that BMS's "wide ranging" contacts with the Commonwealth were enough to support a finding of specific jurisdiction over the claims brought by the nonresident plaintiffs. The Court reasoned concluded that the nonresidents' claims were similar in many ways to the Massachusetts residents' claims and because BMS engaged in other activities in the Commonwealth. As the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, issue your decision on the appeal by BMS of the decision.

**Note: This question is based off a real case but details have been changed that would alter the decision/answer**