Wildman v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 26

ORDER. Plaintiff Shawntell Frye's motion 16 to remand is granted. Plaintiff Barbara Busch's motion 17 to remand is granted. Plaintiff Diane Thompson's motion 14 to remand is granted. Plaintiff Sharon Wildman's motion 16 to remand is granted. Plaintiff Kevin Carter's motion 17 to remand is granted.All other pending motions in these cases are denied as moot. All pending dates in these cases are stricken. These cases shall be remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division. Civil case terminated. [For further details see order.] Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 4/20/2018. Notices mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAWNTELL FRYE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
Case No. 18 C 940
)
v.
)
)
Judge Jorge L. Alonso
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
BARBARA BUSCH,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
Case No. 18 C 1904
)
v.
)
)
Judge Jorge L. Alonso
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
DIANE THOMPSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
Case No. 18 C 1907
)
v.
)
)
Judge Jorge L. Alonso
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
SHARON WILDMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18 C 1909

Judge Jorge L. Alonso

KEVIN CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18 C 2094

Judge Jorge L. Alonso

ORDER
Plaintiff Shawntell Frye’s motion [16] to remand is granted. Plaintiff Barbara Busch’s
motion [17] to remand is granted. Plaintiff Diane Thompson’s motion [14] to remand is granted.
Plaintiff Sharon Wildman’s motion [16] to remand is granted. Plaintiff Kevin Carter’s motion
[17] to remand is granted.
All other pending motions in these cases are denied as moot. All pending dates in these
cases are stricken. These cases shall be remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law
Division.
STATEMENT
In an apparent attempt to avoid the federal jurisdiction conferred by the Class Action
Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)), which requires only minimal diversity (at least one plaintiff
diverse from at least one defendant), plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed dozens of single-plaintiff
cases alleging the same claims against defendant Johnson & Johnson and (here in Illinois at
least) have added as a defendant Walgreen Co., which, like each plaintiff, is a citizen of Illinois.
Defendants removed these three cases to this court, arguing that plaintiffs fraudulently
joined Walgreen Co. in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction, which requires that every plaintiff
be diverse from every defendant.
Because so many of these single-plaintiff cases against Johnson & Johnson have been
filed, many have been transferred to the District of New Jersey by the Panel on Multi-District
Litigation. The Panel has issued and stayed a Conditional Transfer Order (“CTO”) with respect
to Shawntell Frye’s case but has not issued a CTO as to the other cases. In any event, a CTO
does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court to consider a motion for remand. See MultiDistrict
Rules of Procedure 2.1(d) (“The pendency of a conditional transfer order . . . does not affect or
suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in any pending federal district court action and does not
limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.”); Illinois Mun. Ret’t Fund v. Citigroup, Inc., 391 F.3d
844, 852 (7th Cir. 2004) (“We are satisfied . . . that [a district court] does not [exceed its
authority] when it rules on its own jurisdiction. . . . We will not require a district court that
believes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case to facilitate a transfer under §1407, a
statute that does not itself confer jurisdiction.”).

2

Plaintiffs argue that these cases should be remanded, because defendant Walgreen Co.
and plaintiffs are citizens of the same state. Defendant argues that plaintiffs fraudulently joined
Walgreen Co. (against whom defendants believe plaintiffs will not succeed) solely to defeat
jurisdiction.
As the Seventh Circuit has explained:
Like many legal doctrines, ‘fraudulent joinder’ is misnamed, since . . . proof of
fraud, though sufficient, is not necessary for retention of federal jurisdiction—all
that’s required is proof that the claim against the non-diverse defendant is utterly
groundless, and as a groundless claim does not invoke federal jurisdiction.
Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 999 (7th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added) (citing Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974); McCurdy v. Sheriff of Madison Cty, 128 F.3d 1144, 1145
(7th Cir. 1997) (“A frivolous suit does not engage the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”)).
Defendants argue plaintiffs will not succeed against Walgreen Co., which has already
filed motions to dismiss outlining the reason why plaintiffs’ complaints fail to state a claim
against Walgreen Co. That is not enough. Defendants must show not just that plaintiffs fail to
state a claim but also that plaintiffs’ claims are utterly groundless such that they do not engage
the jurisdiction of federal courts. Defendants have not attempted to do so. In a very similar case,
Judge St. Eve carefully considered each of the plaintiffs’ claims against Walgreen Co. and
concluded defendants had failed to show plaintiffs had no reasonable chance of success. Harris
v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 17 C 2889, docket [31], slip op. at 5 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
Defendants have not attempted to distinguish Harris, and the Court agrees with the reasoning in
that case.
Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motions for remand.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: 4/20/18

______________________
JORGE L. ALONSO
United States District Judge

3