Rios et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 14

ORDER OF REMAND: Case remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. All pending motions are terminated as MOOT and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/22/2017. (mah)

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

CHRISTY RIOS, et. al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BAYER CORPORATION, BAYER
HEALTHCARE LLC, BAYER ESSURE,
INC., BAYER HEATHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
BAYER A.G.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-CV-758-SMY-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Yandle, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court sua sponte for its evaluation of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007) (“it is the responsibility of
a court to make an independent evaluation of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in every
case”).

For the following reasons, this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the

Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.
Background
This Court previously remanded this case sua sponte on October 12, 2016 (See, Rios v.
Bayer Corp., No. 16-CV-1010-SMY-RJD, 2016 WL 5929246, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2016)). 1
Defendants have now removed the case for a second time, asserting that the recent U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco

1

Defendants unsuccessfully appealed the Court’s remand. See Rios v. Bayer Corp., No. 16-3896 (7th Cir.).

County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”) and a decision denying remand in Jordan v. Bayer
Corp., No. 4:17-cv-00865-CEJ, 2017 WL 3006993 (E.D. Mo. July 14, 2017) support reremoval. Specifically, Defendants urge the Court to follow the Eastern District of Missouri
and other district courts by conducting a personal jurisdiction analysis when this Court clearly
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because complete citizenship diversity is still lacking on the
face of the Complaint, the Court once again declines Defendants’ request. 2
Discussion
Plaintiffs are 95 individuals who are citizens of 27 different states and the District of
Columbia (Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 2-96). Defendant Bayer Corporation is a citizen of Indiana and
Pennsylvania; Defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC is a citizen of Delaware, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Germany, and the Netherlands; Defendant Bayer Essure, Inc. is a citizen of
Delaware and New Jersey; and Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a citizen of
Delaware and New Jersey (Doc. 1-1).
Plaintiffs filed this action in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison
County, Illinois, seeking damages against Defendants arising out of alleged injuries sustained
as a result of the implantation and use of Essure – a medical device deigned to be a form of
permanent female birth control. Defendants removed the action to this Court asserting diversity
citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal question jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Doc. 1).
A civil action may be removed to federal court if the district court has original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions if there is
complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,

2

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) was filed without leave of court and is hereby STRICKEN.
Accordingly, the Court’s analysis below is based on the original Complaint (Doc. 1-1).

2

exclusive of interest and costs. Complete diversity means that “none of the parties on either
side of the litigation may be a citizen of the state of which a party on the other side is a
citizen.” Howell v. Tribune Entertainment Co., 106 F.3d 215, 217 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations
omitted). The removal statute is construed narrowly and any doubts regarding jurisdiction are
resolved in favor of remand. Doe v. Allied–Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993). If
the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be remanded to state court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the
party seeking removal. Id.
In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants are citizens of Delaware,
Indiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Germany and the Netherlands, and that some of the
plaintiffs are also citizens of Indiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Thus, complete diversity
does not exist on the face of the Complaint. In their Notice of Removal, Defendants s t a t e that
this Court nonetheless has diversity jurisdiction because the out-of-state Plaintiffs’ claims were
either fraudulently joined or procedurally misjoined, and thus the non-diverse Plaintiffs’
citizenship should be ignored for purposes of determining jurisdiction. But because it is clear
from the face of the Complaint that diversity jurisdiction is lacking, the Court need not first
determine the existence of personal jurisdiction, and once again opts not to do so in this case.
See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 587–88, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760
(1999) (stating that if subject- matter jurisdiction involves “no arduous inquiry,” then “both
expedition and sensitivity to state courts' coequal stature should impel the federal court to
dispose of that issue first”); Anglin v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2012 WL 1268143, at *4
(S.D. Ill. 2012); Lambert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 264817, at *3 (S.D. Ill. 2015).
Defendants also seek to invoke federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

3

1331, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims depend on the resolution of a substantial, disputed federal
question and the exercise of jurisdiction will not disrupt the balance between federal and state
jurisdiction adopted by Congress.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts

may assert jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States. Under “the well-pleaded complaint doctrine,” federal question jurisdiction is present
where the face of the complaint alleges a violation of federal law.

Caterpillar Inc. v.

Williams, 482 U .S. 386, 392 (1987).
To establish federal question jurisdiction in this case, Defendants must show either: (1)
that a federal statute grants the court jurisdiction; or (2) that there is common law jurisdiction to
a “uniquely federal interest,” which would be frustrated by the “application of state law.”
Northrop Corp. v. AIL Systems, Inc., 959 F.2d 1424, 1426–27 (7th Cir. 1992). In Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986),
the plaintiff alleged that ingestion of a drug manufactured by the defendant resulted in birth
defects, claiming in part that the drug was “misbranded” in violation of the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Id. at 805. The Supreme Court found that the labeling claims belonged
in state court, noting that “the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does
not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction.” Id. at 813. In doing so, the Court
held that even though federal law would have to apply in resolving the case, the issues did not
sufficiently implicate important federal interests since the FDCA provides no federal cause
of action. Id. at 814.
Similarly here, while Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ conduct violates the FDCA and
consideration of federal regulations may indeed be involved in the disposition of this action,
those facts alone are insufficient to create federal question jurisdiction.

4

See Lancaster v.

Astellas Pharma, Inc., No. 08–cv–0133–MJR, 2008 WL 4378441, at *4 (S.D. Ill. 2008)
(noting “the mere fact that a state court may have to reference federal regulations in
determining the outcome of a claim is not sufficient by itself to create a substantial federal
question); Wagner v. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc., 584 F.Supp.2d 1123, 1125 (E.D. Wis.
2008) (incorporation of federal regulation though state statute insufficient to create disputed
issue of federal law where alleged conduct, if true, would indisputably violate federal
statute); Fuller v. BNSF Ry. Co., 472 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1094 (S.D. Ill. 2007) (rejecting federal
question jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint cited a “a lone federal regulation as an element
of a state-law tort claim”); Orbitz, LLC v. Worldspan, L.P., 425 F.Supp.2d 929 (N.D. Ill. 2006)
(declining to exercise federal question jurisdiction where plaintiffs' claim under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act alleged violation of federal regulations
but resolution of claim turned on showing of deceptive conduct).
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this case is REMANDED back to the Circuit Court f o r the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. All pending motions are terminated as MOOT
and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 22, 2017
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

5