Sturgeon v. Johnson & Johnson et al
Filing
12
OPINION & ORDER: matter is before the court on pla's objections to the removal of this action from the Fayette Circuit Court; this action was properly removed & pla's objections are overruled. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/9/15.(KJR)cc: COR, Sturgeon (US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
VIRGINIA STURGEON,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-93-KKC
Plaintiff,
V.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and SYNTHES,
Defendants.
*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s objections to the removal of this action
from Fayette Circuit Court.
The plaintiff, who is acting pro se, filed this action in state court. She alleges that she
fractured her wrist and, as part of the treatment, a doctor inserted a plate into or on her
wrist. She alleges that the plate was defective and she has suffered physical, financial, and
emotional damages. She asserts claims against defendant Synthes, Inc., which she alleges
manufactured the plate, and against defendant Johnson & Johnson, which she asserts
wholly owns Synthes. All of the plaintiff’s claims appear to be state-law claims.
The defendants removed the action, asserting that this Court has jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a), which provides for federal jurisdiction over actions between citizens of
different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The plaintiff asserts that
she is a Kentucky resident. In their notice of removal, the defendants assert that Johnson
and Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey
and that Synthes is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Pennsylvania.
The plaintiff objects to removal. She does not dispute the jurisdictional facts asserted by
the defendants but asserts that “both entities conduct business on a daily basis in”
Kentucky and that the defendants’ “products are marketed to businesses” in Kentucky. A
corporation’s citizenship for purposes of the diversity statute is determined not by where it
does business but instead by the states in “which it has been incorporated” and by the state
“where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
It is undisputed that the plaintiff is a Kentucky citizen and that neither of the
defendants is incorporated in Kentucky or has its principal place of business here. In her
complaint, plaintiff asserts that her medical expenses alone exceed $ 75,000. Accordingly,
this action was properly removed and the plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
Dated June 9, 2015.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?