1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 724 F.3d
  5. 724 F.3d 337 (2013)
 

JOHNSON v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.

Nos. 12-2561, 12-2562, 12-2563, 12-2564, 12-2565.

724 F.3d 337 (2013)

Glenda JOHNSON; Steven Lucier, Appellants in 12-2561, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, doing business as GlaxoSmithKline; GlaxoSmithKline, LLC; GlaxoSmithKline Holdings LLC; Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., L.L.C.; Avantor Performance Materials; Grunenthal U.S.A.; Grunenthal GmbH, SmithKline Beecham Corporation; GlaxoSmithKline, LLC; and GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, LLC, Appellants in 12-2562, Avantor Performance Materials, Appellant in 12-2563, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Appellant in 12-2564, Grunenthal U.S.A., Appellant in 12-2565.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Filed: June 7, 2013.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Steve W. Berman , Craig R. Spiegel , [Argued], Nick Styant-Browne , Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, Seattle, WA, Mary A. Geppert , Jeffrey L. Kodroff , John A. Macoretta , Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, Philadelphia, PA, Kay G. Reeves , Dallas, TX, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Lisa S. Blatt [Argued], Sarah M. Harris , R. Stanton Jones , Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, Michael T. Scott , Melissa A. Wojtylak , Reed Smith , Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants, SmithKline Beecham Corp., GlaxoSmithKline, and GlaxoSmithKline Holdings LLC.

Anand Agneshwar , Bruce R. Kelly , Arnold & Porter, New York, NY, Kenneth A. Murphy , Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, PA, Daniel S. Pariser , Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, for Appellees, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., and Avantor Performance Materials.

Albert G. Bixler , Rachel C. Rosser , Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Philadelphia, PA, Sara J. Gourley , Eugene A. Schoon , Sidley Austin , Chicago, IL, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants Grunenthal USA and Grunenthal GmbH.

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs Glenda Johnson and Steven Lucier appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying their motion to remand this action to Pennsylvania state court. They contend that the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their claims because the parties do not have complete diversity of citizenship. We conclude that the District Court's assessment...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases