1 WO 2 3
5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8
10 IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC Liability Litigation, 11 ORDER 12 13 14 15 The parties have filed updated reports on Track 3 cases with plaintiff profile form 16 and service of process issues and Track 3 cases for which no federal jurisdiction exists. 17 Docs. 20066, 20209, 20210, 20618. The Court will dismiss some of these cases without 18 prejudice and transfer other cases to appropriate districts. 19 A. Cases without Federal Jurisdiction. 20 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on either federal question 21 jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Courts “analyze federal 22 question jurisdiction with reference to the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Yokeno v. Mafnas, 23 973 F.2d 803, 807 (9th Cir. 1992). Under that rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when 24 a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.” Scholastic 25 Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaint 26 must establish either that “federal law creates the cause of action or that . . . the plaintiff’s 27 right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” 28 Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & 1 Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. 2 Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 3 The master complaint in this MDL asserts seventeen state law claims. See Doc. 364 4 ¶¶ 166-349. Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief 5 on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court 6 lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 7 Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809. 8 Subject matter jurisdiction must therefore be based on diversity of citizenship. See 9 Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between 10 citizens of different states involving claims greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 11 Section 1332 requires complete diversity between the parties – that is, the citizenship of 12 the plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. See Caterpillar, Inc. 13 v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 14 For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. is a citizen of New 15 Jersey and Defendant Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a citizen of Arizona. Doc. 364 16 ¶¶ 11-12; see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) 17 (noting that “a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state 18 where it has its principal place of business”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). Complete 19 diversity does not exist, therefore, where the Plaintiff is a resident of either Arizona or New 20 Jersey. See Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) 21 (“Although diversity jurisdiction provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction 22 over state law claims, complete diversity is lacking in this case because both [plaintiff] and 23 [defendant] are citizens of California.”). 24 The parties’ updated report identifies pending Track 3 cases in which diversity 25 jurisdiction does not exist because the Plaintiff is either a resident of Arizona or New 26 Jersey. Doc. 20210-1. In most of these cases, Plaintiffs agree to a dismissal without 27 prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs in some cases oppose dismissal, but provide no reason why the 28 cases should not be dismissed given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. 1 A district court may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time 2 during the pendency of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 3 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting Rule 12(h)(3) permits a district court to “raise 4 the question of subject matter jurisdiction[] sua sponte”); In re Phenylpropanolamine 5 (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2006) (an MDL “transferee 6 judge exercises all the powers of a district judge in the transferee district under the Federal 7 Rules of Civil Procedure”). The following cases lack subject matter jurisdiction and are 8 dismissed without prejudice: 9 10 Case Caption Case Number Plaintiff’s Residence 11 Stephen Albert v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01010 Arizona 12 Patricia Borg v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04221 Arizona 13 Annette Casey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-02558 Arizona 14 Frederick Hollister v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03237 Arizona 15 Chris Vandell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-01549 Arizona James Chambers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04521 Arizona 16 Elena Ruiz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01645 Arizona 17 Sonja Lee Brumfield v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03124 Arizona 18 Catherine A. Bean v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03468 Arizona 19 James Dale Meredith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03605 Arizona 20 Jan Louise Norquest v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-3609 Arizona 21 Faith Crawford v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04259 Arizona 22 James Noa v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-02389 Arizona 23 William Barben v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-2460 New Jersey 24 Giles Bartosch v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-00058 New Jersey 25 Edith Cruz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02432 New Jersey 26 Melissa Czarnecki v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01086 New Jersey 27 William Engh v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03080 New Jersey 28 Renee Harris v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01993 New Jersey 1 Robert James Maiore v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02772 New Jersey 2 Carlos Mason v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03762 New Jersey 3 Erwin Melendez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01400 New Jersey 4 Charles Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02544 New Jersey 5 Marilyn Ann Ratz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00574 New Jersey 6 Robert Russo v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01287 New Jersey 7 Saad Sabir v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-00328 New Jersey 8 Katherine Varian v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01611 New Jersey Dianna L. Kubik v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04293 New Jersey 9 Barbara S. Rossell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04307 New Jersey 10 Sandra J. Farley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00844 New Jersey 11 William H. Jackson, IV v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01559 New Jersey 12 Philip Merten v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01637 New Jersey 13 Eileen O’Brien v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01639 New Jersey 14 Kimberly Watkins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02312 New Jersey 15 Richard D. Mozgai v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3
5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8
10 IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC Liability Litigation, 11 ORDER 12 13 14 15 The parties have filed updated reports on Track 3 cases with plaintiff profile form 16 and service of process issues and Track 3 cases for which no federal jurisdiction exists. 17 Docs. 20066, 20209, 20210, 20618. The Court will dismiss some of these cases without 18 prejudice and transfer other cases to appropriate districts. 19 A. Cases without Federal Jurisdiction. 20 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on either federal question 21 jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Courts “analyze federal 22 question jurisdiction with reference to the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Yokeno v. Mafnas, 23 973 F.2d 803, 807 (9th Cir. 1992). Under that rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when 24 a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.” Scholastic 25 Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaint 26 must establish either that “federal law creates the cause of action or that . . . the plaintiff’s 27 right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” 28 Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & 1 Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. 2 Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 3 The master complaint in this MDL asserts seventeen state law claims. See Doc. 364 4 ¶¶ 166-349. Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief 5 on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court 6 lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 7 Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809. 8 Subject matter jurisdiction must therefore be based on diversity of citizenship. See 9 Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between 10 citizens of different states involving claims greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 11 Section 1332 requires complete diversity between the parties – that is, the citizenship of 12 the plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. See Caterpillar, Inc. 13 v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 14 For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. is a citizen of New 15 Jersey and Defendant Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a citizen of Arizona. Doc. 364 16 ¶¶ 11-12; see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) 17 (noting that “a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state 18 where it has its principal place of business”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). Complete 19 diversity does not exist, therefore, where the Plaintiff is a resident of either Arizona or New 20 Jersey. See Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) 21 (“Although diversity jurisdiction provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction 22 over state law claims, complete diversity is lacking in this case because both [plaintiff] and 23 [defendant] are citizens of California.”). 24 The parties’ updated report identifies pending Track 3 cases in which diversity 25 jurisdiction does not exist because the Plaintiff is either a resident of Arizona or New 26 Jersey. Doc. 20210-1. In most of these cases, Plaintiffs agree to a dismissal without 27 prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs in some cases oppose dismissal, but provide no reason why the 28 cases should not be dismissed given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. 1 A district court may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time 2 during the pendency of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 3 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting Rule 12(h)(3) permits a district court to “raise 4 the question of subject matter jurisdiction[] sua sponte”); In re Phenylpropanolamine 5 (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2006) (an MDL “transferee 6 judge exercises all the powers of a district judge in the transferee district under the Federal 7 Rules of Civil Procedure”). The following cases lack subject matter jurisdiction and are 8 dismissed without prejudice: 9 10 Case Caption Case Number Plaintiff’s Residence 11 Stephen Albert v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01010 Arizona 12 Patricia Borg v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04221 Arizona 13 Annette Casey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-02558 Arizona 14 Frederick Hollister v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03237 Arizona 15 Chris Vandell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-01549 Arizona James Chambers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04521 Arizona 16 Elena Ruiz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01645 Arizona 17 Sonja Lee Brumfield v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03124 Arizona 18 Catherine A. Bean v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03468 Arizona 19 James Dale Meredith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03605 Arizona 20 Jan Louise Norquest v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-3609 Arizona 21 Faith Crawford v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04259 Arizona 22 James Noa v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-02389 Arizona 23 William Barben v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-2460 New Jersey 24 Giles Bartosch v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-00058 New Jersey 25 Edith Cruz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02432 New Jersey 26 Melissa Czarnecki v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01086 New Jersey 27 William Engh v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03080 New Jersey 28 Renee Harris v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01993 New Jersey 1 Robert James Maiore v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02772 New Jersey 2 Carlos Mason v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03762 New Jersey 3 Erwin Melendez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01400 New Jersey 4 Charles Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02544 New Jersey 5 Marilyn Ann Ratz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00574 New Jersey 6 Robert Russo v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01287 New Jersey 7 Saad Sabir v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-00328 New Jersey 8 Katherine Varian v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01611 New Jersey Dianna L. Kubik v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04293 New Jersey 9 Barbara S. Rossell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04307 New Jersey 10 Sandra J. Farley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00844 New Jersey 11 William H. Jackson, IV v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01559 New Jersey 12 Philip Merten v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01637 New Jersey 13 Eileen O’Brien v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01639 New Jersey 14 Kimberly Watkins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02312 New Jersey 15 Richard D. Mozgai v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02444 New Jersey 16 Lisa M. Anderson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03122 New Jersey 17 Carolyn G. Murray v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03607 New Jersey 18 19 Plaintiff in Pickraum, CV-18-04338, is a New Jersey resident who recently filed an 20 amended short form complaint that removes C. R. Bard as a Defendant. Doc. 20625. 21 Because the sole remaining Defendant, Bard Peripheral Vascular, is a citizen of Arizona, 22 diversity jurisdiction now exists in the case. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 23 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that “Rule 21 specifically allows for the dismissal of 24 parties at any stage of the action” and there “is no requirement that diversity exist at the 25 time of the filing of the complaint”). The case will be transferred to the District of New 26 Jersey in a separate order. See Docs. 19899 at 3-6, 20625 at 2. 27 Plaintiff in Butterfield, CV-19-00395, a New Jersey resident, states that she will 28 stipulate to the dismissal of C. R. Bard. Doc. 20210-1 at 8. Plaintiff shall file a stipulation 1 to dismiss C. R. Bard or an amended short form complaint against only Bard Peripheral 2 Vascular by October 31, 2019. 3 B. Cases with Plaintiff Profile Form Issues. 4 As noted, the parties filed updated reports on Track 3 cases with plaintiff profile 5 form (“PPF”) issues. Docs. 20066, 20618. 6 1. Cases with Complete PPFs. 7 In most of the cases, Plaintiffs have provided PPFs to which Defendants have no 8 objection. See Docs. 20066-1, 20618-1. These cases will be transferred to the districts 9 identified as the proper venue in the short-form complaints in an order to follow. See 10 Doc. 19899 at 3-6. 11 2. Cases with No Proper PPF. 12 Plaintiffs have provided no PPF or a deficient PPF in 25 cases. Docs. 20066-1, 13 20618-1. In three cases – Fiset, CV-19-00198, Williams, CV-18-04320, and Barr, CV-19- 14 04315 – Plaintiffs seek additional time to provide a PPF. Doc. 20618 at 3-4. Defendants 15 do not oppose the requests. Id. The motions for extensions of time (Docs. 20456, 20622) 16 are granted. Plaintiffs Fiset, Williams, and Barr shall have until October 31, 2019 to 17 provide complete PPFs to Defendants. The parties shall provide an updated report on these 18 cases by November 8, 2019. The Court may dismiss the cases if no complete PPF is 19 provided by the October 31 deadline. See Doc. 19873 at 3. 20 The Plaintiff in Sattizahn, CV-19-04322, has died. Doc. 20618 at 2. The parties 21 stipulate to the dismissal of the case. Id.; Doc. 20618-1 at 2. The stipulation is granted 22 and the case is dismissed without prejudice. 23 The other 21 cases in which no complete PPF has been provided will be dismissed 24 without prejudice. Case Management Order No. 5 requires each Plaintiff who directly files 25 a short form complaint in this MDL to provide a complete PPF to Defendants within 26 60 days of filing the complaint. Doc. 365 at 1. Defendants may seek dismissal of the case 27 if no such PPF is received within 20 days after providing notice of the deficiency to 28 Plaintiff. Id. 1 On July 10, 2019, Defendants identified the Track 3 cases with no complete PPF. 2 Doc. 19445-11 (Exhibit K). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to provide complete PPFs by 3 August 22. Doc. 19874 at 3. This deadline was extended to August 30 for some Plaintiffs 4 based on prior stipulations between the parties. Doc. 19936. 5 Defendants now seek dismissal of each case in which no complete PPF has been 6 provided. Doc. 20066 at 2. Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel request that counsel of record for 7 each individual case be given an opportunity to respond to a separate motion to dismiss, 8 but no reason is given for this request. Id. In each case, a PPF was required no later than 9 August 30, 2019. See Docs. 19798-11, 19936-1. Plaintiffs were notified of the PPF 10 deficiencies more than two months ago. Doc. 19798-11. On August 7, 2019, the Court 11 explicitly warned Plaintiffs that their cases may be dismissed if no complete PPF was 12 provided. Doc. 19873 at 3. No Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the failure to 13 provide a complete PPF. Defendants’ request is granted and the following cases are 14 dismissed without prejudice: 15 Case Caption Case Number 16 Andrea Dancy v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02016 17 Rachel Lyons v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04182 18 David Stowe v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04270 19 Charles Hill v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01620 20 Michelle Camp v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04275 21 Gayle Bays v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04264 22 Rosemary Wightman v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03930 23 Cassie Wade-Cook v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01999 24 Jackie Sharon Berryman v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04048 25 Joseph Maloney v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03936 26 Linda Henry v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04218 27 Angela Cummings v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01561 28 Sean Crosby v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03987 ! : 3 9 C. Cases with Service of Process Issues. 10 The parties previously identified 100 Track 3 cases that were not served on Defendants. Doc. 19798-7. The Court gave each Plaintiff until August 29, 2019 to send the short form complaint and a request for waiver of service to Defendants’ counsel. Doc. 19874 at 4. According to the parties’ updated report, all Plaintiffs have served their complaints with the exception of the Plaintiff in Cornelius, CV-19-02716, who has || indicated that the case will be dismissed. Docs. 20209 at 2, 20209-2 Plaintiff 16] Cornelius shall file a stipulation of dismissal by October 31, 2019. The remaining cases will be transferred to appropriate districts. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated this 16th day of October, 2019. 20 DS aul 6 aur © Cauphtl 73 David G, Campbell Senior United States District Judge 25 26 27 28
-7-