Dunson et al v. Cordis Corporation

Filing 33

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE: CAFA JURISDICTION (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/5/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
JERRY DUNSON, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
CORDIS CORPORATION, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case Nos. 16-cv-03076-SI
16-cv-03080-SI
16-cv-03082-SI
16-cv-03083-SI
16-cv-03085-SI
16-cv-03086-SI
16-cv-03087-SI
16-cv-03088-SI
16-cv-04012-SI
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING RE: CAFA JURISDICTION

13
14

Defendant Cordis Corporation has removed nine separate state court actions to federal

15
16
17
18

court, alleging jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d).1 In each notice of removal, Cordis asserted that these cases were in the form of
a mass action:
in which monetary relief claims of more than 100 persons are proposed to be tried
jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or
facts; the parties are of at least minimally diverse citizenship; the aggregate amount
in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; and at least one plaintiff puts more than
$75,000 in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs.

19
20
21
22

See Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of Removal).
These nine cases were assigned to nine different judges in this district. On July 27, 2016,

23
24
25
26

the court in 16-cv-3080 issued a Referral for Purposes of Determining Relationship, pursuant to
Local Rule 3-12(c). Defendants Cordis Corporation and Cardinal Health opposed the related case
referral on the basis that “the parties are not substantially the same” and the “transactions and

27
1

28

Cases 16-cv-03082, 16-cv-03083, 16-cv-03085, 16-cv-03086, 16-cv-03087 and 16-cv-03088
were removed on June 6, 2016. Case 16-cv-4012 was removed on July 15, 2016.

1

events are not substantially the same.” Dkt. No. 30, 3:16-cv-03076-SI. On August 4, 2016, the

2

undersigned judge of the low-numbered case in the Referral, determined that the cases are related.

3

Consequently, all nine actions are now pending before the undersigned.2
In the meantime, various motions have been filed in the various actions. Some plaintiffs

5

filed motions to remand, which have since been re-noticed. See Dkt. Nos. 16 & 34, 3:16-cv-

6

03080-SI; Dkt. Nos. 15 & 37, 3:16-cv-03083-SI; Dkt. Nos. 14 & 33, 3:16-cv-03085-SI; Dkt. No.

7

16 & 40, 3:16-cv-03086-SI; Dkt. Nos. 20 & 47, 4:16-cv-03088-SI. Defendants in some cases filed

8

motions to dismiss, which some plaintiffs opposed with motions to stay; some of those stay

9

motions have been granted or re-noticed. See Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 18 (order), 3:16-cv-

10

03076-SI; Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 17 (mot. to stay) & 20 (stay order), 3:16-cv-03080-SI;

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

Dkt. No. 7 (mot. to dismiss), 3:16-cv-03082-SI; Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 16 (mot. to stay)

12

& 38 (re-notice mot. to stay), 3:16-cv-03083-SI; Dkt. No. 7 (mot. to dismiss), 3:16-cv-03085-SI;

13

Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 17 (mot. to stay), 3:16-cv-03086-SI; Dkt. Nos. 16 (mot. to

14

dismiss) & 26 (mot. to stay), 3:16-cv-03087-SI; Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 21 (mot. to stay)

15

& 26 (stay order), 3:16-cv-03088-SI. Defendant Cardinal Health filed a motion to dismiss in two

16

cases on the basis of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 12 (mot. to dismiss), 3:16-cv-03086-SI;

17

Dkt. No. 13 (mot. to dismiss), 3:16-cv-03088-SI.

18

undersigned, have issued orders to show cause as to the basis of CAFA jurisdiction. See Dkt. No.

19

27, 3:16-cv-03076-SI; Dkt. No. 22, 3:16-cv-03082-SI.

In addition, two judges, including the

20

To facilitate the orderly processing of these matters, all pending motions and case

21

management conferences in the above-captioned cases are STAYED pending this Court’s ruling

22

on whether there is federal jurisdiction over these cases.

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

There is at least one other Cordis case in this district alleging a TrapEase IVC filter product
defect, 4:16-cv-02500-JSW, Cottrell v. Cordis Corporation et al. That case was not included in
the Referral for Purposes of Determining Relationship, and accordingly was not considered. It
appears from the file, however, that jurisdiction over that case is premised on diversity, not CAFA.
2

1

Plaintiffs who wish to file a supplemental brief of no more than 10 pages on the

2

question of federal jurisdiction may do so by August 11, 2016. Defendants who wish to file a

3

response of no more than 10 pages may do so by August 16, 2016. A hearing on this matter

4

is set for 10:00am August 19, 2016.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3