Friedman et al v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 14 MOTION TO REMAND. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

JOHN FRIEDMAN; and BARBARA
FRIEDMAN,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

v.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL
COMPANY LIMITED; TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; TAKEDA
GLOBAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
CENTER, INC.; and TAKEDA SAN
DIEGO, INC.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO REMAND
(Docket No. 14)

Plaintiffs,

6
7

No. C 11-6725 CW

________________________________/
Plaintiffs John and Barbara Friedman move to remand this case

16

to state court.

Defendants Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America,

17

Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Takeda

18

Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, LLC,

19

Takeda Global Research & Development Center, Inc., and Takeda San

20
Diego, Inc. have not filed a response to Plaintiffs’ motion.

For

21
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.
22
BACKGROUND

23
24

Plaintiffs, a married couple, are California citizens

25

currently residing in San Francisco County.

26

They filed this action in San Francisco Superior Court on December

27

8, 2011.

28

Compl. ¶¶ 2, 170.

All Defendants, with the exception of Takeda San Diego,

1

are non-California citizens; Takeda San Diego is a California

2

citizen.

3

Diego individually and in partnership with the other Defendants,

4

designed, researched, manufactured, tested, promoted, marketed and

5

distributed a drug, Actos (pioglitazone).

6

Id. at ¶¶ 14-19.

Plaintiffs allege that Takeda San

Id. at ¶¶ 19, 26.

Mr. Friedman used Actos from March 2000 through October 2010.

7
Id. at ¶ 41.

He was diagnosed with bladder cancer in June 2008.

8
9

Id. at ¶¶ 3, 42.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, as

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

a result of the defective design, manufacturing and testing of

11

Actos by Defendants, people who took Actos were at an increased

12

risk for developing bladder cancer.

13

claims against Defendants arising out of these events, including

14

claims for negligence.

Plaintiffs assert various

Id. at ¶¶ 3, 48-168, 169-176.

15
On December 30, 2011, certain Defendants removed the instant
16
action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity
17
18

jurisdiction, arguing that Takeda San Diego was fraudulently

19

joined.

20

San Diego, Inc. did not design, develop, manufacture, market,

21

sell, distribute, participate in labeling, or conduct safety

22

testing of Actos” and could not be held liable.

23

¶ 27.

In the Notice of Removal, Defendants argue that “Takeda

Notice of Removal

However, the president and chief scientific officer of

24
Takeda San Diego stated in a declaration supporting removal that
25
26

Takeda San Diego has in fact played a role in the study and

27

testing of pioglitazone.

28

Wilson Decl., Ex. B to Notice of

Removal, ¶ 6.
2

1

DISCUSSION

2

To make a showing of fraudulent joinder, Defendants “must

3

demonstrate that there is no possibility” that Plaintiffs will be

4

able to establish a cause of action in state court against Takeda

5

San Diego.

6

Lantz v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2005 WL 1629937, at *1

(N.D. Cal.).

However, here, there is a reasonable possibility

7
that Plaintiffs could prove that Takeda San Diego is liable for
8
9

negligence, both directly and under a joint enterprise theory
See Hill v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

pursuant to California law.

11

North America, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6451, at *4-8 (N.D.

12

Cal.) (Alsup, J.) (addressing identical allegations against Takeda

13

San Diego).

14

Further, “[t]he ‘strong presumption’ against removal

15
jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of
16
establishing that removal is proper.”

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

17
18

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

19

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and have not met their burden.
CONCLUSION

20
21
22
23

Defendants did not respond to

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is
GRANTED (Docket No. 14).

The Clerk shall remand this action to

San Francisco County Superior Court and close the file.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: 2/3/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28
3