Cummings v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. See Order for Details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 10/16/19. (MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products
Liability Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC
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.

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 &

Cases without Federal Jurisdiction.

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.

-2-

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

16

James Chambers v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-04521

Arizona

Elena Ruiz v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01645

Arizona

Sonja Lee Brumfield v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03124

Arizona

Catherine A. Bean v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03468

Arizona

James Dale Meredith v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03605

Arizona

Jan Louise Norquest v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-3609

Arizona

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

17
18
19
20
21

-3-

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

9

Dianna L. Kubik v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-04293

New Jersey

Barbara S. Rossell v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-04307

New Jersey

Sandra J. Farley v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00844

New Jersey

William H. Jackson, IV v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01559

New Jersey

Philip Merten v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01637

New Jersey

Eileen O’Brien v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01639

New Jersey

10
11
12
13
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

-4-

1

to dismiss C. R. Bard or an amended short form complaint against only Bard Peripheral

2

Vascular by October 31, 2019.

3

B.

4

As noted, the parties filed updated reports on Track 3 cases with plaintiff profile

5

Cases with Plaintiff Profile Form Issues.

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.

-5-

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
16

Case Caption

Case Number

Andrea Dancy v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02016

Rachel Lyons v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04182

David Stowe v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04270

Charles Hill v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01620

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

17
18
19
20

-6-

1

LaWanda Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03992

2

Verlon Freeman v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03758

3

Joe R. Garza v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03449

4

Juanita M. Chaires v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03463

5

Belinda Hankins v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03940

6

Barry L. Nowlin v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01179

7

Andrew Tetrault v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-01602

8

Christina Shepherd v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02906

9

C.

Cases with Service of Process Issues.

10

The parties previously identified 100 Track 3 cases that were not served on

11

Defendants. Doc. 19798-7. The Court gave each Plaintiff until August 29, 2019 to send

12

the short form complaint and a request for waiver of service to Defendants’ counsel.

13

Doc. 19874 at 4. According to the parties’ updated report, all Plaintiffs have served their

14

complaints with the exception of the Plaintiff in Cornelius, CV-19-02716, who has

15

indicated that the case will be dismissed. Docs. 20209 at 2, 20209-2 at 4. Plaintiff

16

Cornelius shall file a stipulation of dismissal by October 31, 2019. The remaining cases

17

will be transferred to appropriate districts.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated this 16th day of October, 2019.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-