Jacoby et al v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER Requesting Briefing on Existence of Federal Jurisdiction and Proper Venue. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 3/3/2017.(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

ELISABETH JACOBY; GLENN
JACOBY; REBECCA JANE JACKSON;
RUBY WAGONER; ELRA GUERIN;
DEBORAH TRABER; NORA
ROMERO; DARL BARBALACCI,

17
18

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING
ON EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION AND PROPER
VENUE

Plaintiffs,

15
16

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00471-BEN-JLB

v.
PFIZER INC.; GREENSTONE LLC;
McKESSON CORPORATION,
Defendants.

19
20

Plaintiffs filed this action in state court. Defendants Pfizer Inc. and Greenstone

21

LLC removed the case to this Court, asserting (1) diversity jurisdiction and (2) federal

22

jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act’s (“CAFA”) “mass action” provision.

23

The parties never litigated in this Court whether removal was proper because, upon

24

removal, the case was transferred to a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding in the

25

District of South Carolina (the “MDL court”).

26

Almost a year after removal, in February 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on

27

Multidistrict Litigation remanded the case because the MDL court lacked jurisdiction.

28

The MDL court found that diversity jurisdiction did not exist “and that the only possible
1
3:16-cv-00471-BEN-JLB

1

basis for federal jurisdiction is CAFA.” (Docket No. 10). Because CAFA precludes

2

MDL consideration of a case removed to federal court under CAFA’s “mass action”

3

provision, like this one, the MDL court remanded the action.

4

In the briefs filed in the MDL court, Plaintiffs contended that CAFA jurisdiction

5

does not exist. They sought to add this case to an existing coordinated proceeding in

6

California state court. Pfizer argued that federal jurisdiction exists. The MDL court did

7

not determine whether CAFA jurisdiction exists to maintain this action in federal court.

8

Therefore, whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider this action is an open question.

9

Accordingly, the Court requests briefing to determine whether it has federal

10

jurisdiction under CAFA. Removing defendants must file an opening brief addressing

11

whether federal jurisdiction exists and whether venue is proper in this Court. See Abrego

12

Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “under

13

CAFA the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction remains, as before, on the

14

proponent of federal jurisdiction”). The brief must be filed by March 17, 2017. Plaintiffs

15

must file a response by March 31, 2017. Removing defendants may file a reply by April

16

7, 2017. Defendant McKesson Corporation, which did not join in the removal, must file

17

a statement of its position by April 7, 2017. The Court will then take the matter under

18

submission without oral argument. After review of the fully briefed matter, the parties

19

will be notified of an oral argument hearing date, if any. The parties’ briefs must comply

20

with the requirements for Civil Local Rule 7.1.

21

If the parties agree that this action should be remanded to state court, they may file

22

a joint stipulation at any time.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: March 3, 2017

25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-00471-BEN-JLB