Wilson et al v. Pfizer, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER OF REMAND: Case remanded to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. Granting 12 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Plaintiffs. Finding as moot 22 MOTION to Sever filed by Defendant. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 3/27/2012. (ktc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DANIELLE WILSON, a minor, by Hope
Lower, Individually as parent and next
friend of Danielle Wilson; BRYAN
BENDICKSON, a minor, by Cindy
Bendickson, Individually as parent and next
friend of Bryan Bendickson; ABIGAIL
BUNETA, a minor, by Marianne Buneta and
Jason Gultch, Individually as parents and
next friends of Abigail Buneta; ITAIR
JONES, a minor, by Monica Jones and
Roosevelt Jones, Individually as parents and
next friends of Itair Jones; MARQUISE
BLACK, a minor, by Carlisa Black and John
Black, Individually as parents and next
friends of Marquise Black; PAIGE
SCHULZE, a minor, by Mary Schulze,
Individually as parent and next friend of
Paige Schulze; DANIEL KNOWLES, a
minor, by Norneesa Knowles, Individually as
parent and next friend of Daniel Knowles;
STEVON JONES, a minor, by Sharon Jones
and Antoine Bossier, Individually as parents
and next friends of Stevon Jones,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PFIZER, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 11-1078-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiffs filed this action in St. Clair County, Illinois, alleging strict products liability,
negligence, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and various counts of misrepresentation,
Page 1 of 4

breach of warranty, and fraud (Doc 2-1). Plaintiffs claim that use of Pfizer’s product Zoloft by
pregnant women caused birth defects in their children. Pfizer removed the case, citing the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc. 2). The case is now before the Court on
Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. 12). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is
GRANTED.
Defendant Pfizer is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New
York (Doc. 2). Pfizer is therefore a citizen of Delaware and New York. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Plaintiffs Daniel Knowles and Norneesa Knowles are also citizens of New York (Doc. 2). As the
proponent of federal jurisdiction, Pfizer “bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirements
for diversity are met. Specifically [that party] must establish complete diversity, meaning that no
plaintiff may be from the same state as any defendant.” Smart v. Local 702 Intern. Broth. of Elec.
Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 803 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The parties
here are clearly not completely diverse–the Knowles and Pfizer are all citizens of New York. Pfizer
nevertheless argues that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 , invoking
the concept of “fraudulent misjoinder.”
Fraudulent misjoinder is distinct from fraudulent joinder–joining a nondiverse defendant in
an attempt to avoid federal diversity jurisdiction. Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 999 (7th
Cir. 2011). Fraudulent joinder is a difficult-to-establish “exception to the requirement of complete
diversity” which prevents remand. Id.; Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 764
(7th Cir. 2009). “Fraudulent joinder occurs either when there is no possibility that a plaintiff can
state a cause of action against nondiverse defendants in state court, or when there has been outright
fraud in plaintiff’s pleading of jurisdictional facts.” Gottlieb v. Westin Hotel Co., 990 F.2d 323, 327

Page 2 of 4

(7th Cir. 1993). Fraudulent misjoinder (or “procedural misjoinder”) on the other hand, would permit
a federal court to find complete diversity when plaintiffs have “egregious[ly]” misjoined their, nonfraudulent, claims. Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1996). Neither
the Seventh Circuit nor the United States Supreme Court have considered the validity of the
fraudulent misjoinder doctrine. However, several District Judges in this District, including the
undersigned, have considered and rejected the doctrine. See Aranda v. Walgreen Co., No. 11-cv654-JPG-DGW, 2011 WL 3793648 (S.D.Ill. Aug. 24, 2011); In re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 779 F.Supp.2d 846 (S.D.Ill. 2011);
Baker v. Johnson & Johnson, 709 F.Supp.2d 677 (S.D.Ill. 2010); Rutherford v. Merck & Co., 428
F.Supp.2d 842 (S.D.Ill. 2006).
This Court holds to the rationale discussed at length in Rutherford, most notably that
fraudulent misjoinder “is an improper expansion of the scope of federal diversity jurisdiction by the
federal courts.” Rutherford, 428 F.Supp. 2d at 852. The undersigned has issued several orders
summarizing Rutherford in detail. See Baker v. Johnson & Johnson, 709 F.Supp.2d at 686;
Anderson v. Bayer Corp., No. 09-988-GPM, 2010 WL 148633 (S.D.Ill. Jan. 13, 2010); Lecker v.
Bayer Corp., No. 09-991-GPM, 2010 WL 148627 (S.D.Ill. Jan. 13, 2010); Bancroft v. Bayer Corp.,
No. 09-990-GPM, 2010 WL 148628 (S.D.Ill. Jan. 13, 2010); Brown v. Bayer Corp., No. 09-989GPM, 2010 WL 148629 (S.D.Ill. Jan. 13, 2010); Robinson v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
533 F.Supp.2d 838, 842 (S.D.Ill. 2008).
The Court finds it unnecessary to rehash Rutherford yet again here. The Court does not
accept the doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder, and as that doctrine formed the only basis for Pfizer’s
removal, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is GRANTED–federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking

Page 3 of 4

as there is not complete diversity between the parties. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. All other pending motions are
denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the clerk
of the state court and to close the file of this case on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 27, 2012
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4