Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Melvin V. Heller, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Neida Osoria Pizarro, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Hilton Perez Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Charlene Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Tomas Ponton, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Carmen Quinones Lacourt, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Miriam Vega Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Angel Ramirez-Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Marlin Reaves, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Oscar Rios Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Hector Rivera Negron, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Ramona Rivera Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Jaime Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Norma Rodriguez Bachier, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Gilberto Rodriguez Mercado, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Jose Rodriguez Planas, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Marta Rojas Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Leticia Romero Borges, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Luis Romero Morales, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Clayton Sampy, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Antonio Santiago Nieves, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Larry Sinkhorn, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Will Sledge, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Alberto Stolle Carrasquillo, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Chericia Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Edga Torres Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Hector Trujillo Miranda, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Elinora Vaughn Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Frankie Vazquez-Oronch, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Anaminta Velasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Jose Viera Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Zaida Villaznueva Collazo, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Luis Vinas Serrano, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Eugene Webber, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Caroline White, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
Aida De La Cruz Ramon, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson , Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan , Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier , Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Defendant, represented by Kristine W Hanson , King and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz , King and Spalding LLP, Steven D Park , King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle , King and Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr , King and Spalding LLP.
AstraZeneca LP, Defendant, represented by Kristine W Hanson , King and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz , King and Spalding LLP, Steven D Park , King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle , King and Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr , King and Spalding LLP.
McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristine W Hanson , King and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz , King and Spalding LLP, Steven D Park , King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle , King and Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr , King and Spalding LLP.
United States District Court, C.D. California.
CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, District Judge.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION (JS-6)
On February 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed this tort action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, in which they named the following defendants: Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP; Astrazeneca, LP; McKesson Corp.; and Does 1-50 (collectively "Defendants"). Dkt. 1, Exh. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiffs are 39 individuals for whom Crestor was prescribed; it is a pharmaceutical drug that lowers cholesterol levels in patients. Crestor is manufactured, marketed, and distributed by Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 1, 48. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of taking Crestor, each suffered various injuries, including: myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, sudden cardiac arrest, type II diabetes, and kidney and liver damage. Id. ¶ 1.
Prior to the time that Plaintiffs filed this action, 13 other separate, but similar, lawsuits against defendants had been coordinated by the California courts through Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4713 ("JCCP 4713"), pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 404, et seq. and Rules of Court 3.500, et seq. See Declaration of Lowell W. Finson ("Finson Decl."), Dkt. 28-1, Exh. A. On April 30, 2013, the California courts added this case and four others to JCCP 4713. Finson Decl., Exh. B. On April 30, 2014, in another similar state court action, Gilbert, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., Case No. BC536980, Plaintiffs' counsel moved for its coordination with the JCCP 4713 (the "Add-On Request"). Declaration of Steven Park ("Park Decl."), Dkt. 7, Exh. A.
On May 30, 2014, Defendants removed the action. Dkt. 1.1 They assert that there is subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11), a provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Section 1332(d)(11) creates original jurisdiction in federal courts over mass actions "in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact." Id. (Emphasis added). That subsection provides that a mass action does not include any civil action in which "the claims are joined upon motion of a defendant" or "the claims have been consolidated or coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings." Id. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(II), (IV). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this provision as "limit[ing] the numerosity component of mass actions quite severely" by including only actions in which "the trial itself would address the claims of at least one hundred plaintiffs." Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Defendants acknowledge that, after Tanoh, courts have "uniformly remanded cases where defendants removed after plaintiffs filed a petition seeking to coordinate their cases `for all purposes' before one judge." Dkt. 1 ¶ 12. And, recently, the Ninth Circuit held that "requests for coordination of cases that each have fewer than 100 plaintiffs but in the aggregate include claims of 100 or more persons" do not constitute "a proposal to try the cases jointly" when the main focus is on pretrial matters. Id. ¶ 13 (citing Romo v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 2013), reh'g en banc granted, 742 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2014).
Notwithstanding these holdings, Defendants argue that their removal of this action was proper for three principal reasons. First, they argue that the Add-On Request filed in Gilbert proposed that Plaintiffs' claims be combined "for all purposes" including trial. Dkt. 1 ¶ 17. However, nothing in the Add-On Request suggests that all of the actions in JCCP 4713 will be tried jointly. Rather, it urges coordination because it would allow the parties to coordinate discovery, eliminate the need for duplicative appearances, status conferences, and discovery conferenes, and eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings on motions. See Park Decl., Dkt. 7, Exh. A. The focus of the September 6, 2012 coordination order is the same. See Finson Decl., Exh. A.
Second, they contend that "CAFA does not require that claims be proposed to be tried jointly at the same time or in a single trial." Dkt. 1 ¶ 17. However, that reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11) is inconsistent with Tanoh. See 561 F.3d at 954 (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV) "limit[s] the numerosity component of mass actions quite severely by including only actions in which the trial itself would address the claims of at least one hundred plaintiffs.").
Third, Defendants argue that the Ninth Circuit's decision to rehear Romo en banc "may signal a forthcoming change in Ninth Circuit law to recognize the right to removal in circumstances such as presented in this case." Dkt. 1 ¶ 14 (italics added).2 However, that is just speculation. The Ninth Circuit has not issued any opinion to that effect, nor has it reversed Tanoh, which remains binding precedent.
For these reasons, other district courts have remanded other JCCP 4713 cases that Defendants had removed. See Gilbert, et al. v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., LA CV 14-4012 JFW (JPRx), Dkt. 17 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2014); Golden, et al. v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., LA CV 14-04115 BRO (AGRx), Dkt. 17 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2014); Walker, et al. v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., ED CV 14-1068 GAF (JEMx), Dkt. 19 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2014); Forrester v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., LA CV 14-4128 PSG (ASx), Dkt. 17 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2014); Sawyer v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., LA CV 14-4050 PSG (JCx), Dkt. 20 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2014).
The analyses by these courts are persuasive. This Court joins these courts and finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . .").
For all of the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC501979, at the Central Civil West Courthouse.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Comment
User Comments