Hilton v. Purdue Pharma L P et al
Filing
10
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 12/15/2017. (crt,Tice, Y)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
b
WILLIAM HILTON, SHERIFF OF
RAPIDES PARISH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-01586
VERSUS
JUDGE DRELL
PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., et al.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW BRIEFING ORDER
Before the Court is a Complaint removed from a Louisiana state court by
Defendants Purdue Pharma, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., and The Purdue Fredrick
Company, Inc. (Doc. 1).
Defendants premise federal jurisdiction on diversity of
citizenship.
The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.”
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). This duty persists throughout all
phases of the litigation, even after trial and the entry of final judgment. See id. at
506-07.
The diversity statute – 28 U.S.C. § 1332 – is satisfied upon a showing of: (1)
diversity of citizenship between the parties; and (2) an amount in controversy in
excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. “Complete diversity requires that
all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all
persons on the other side.” Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079
(5th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Further, “when jurisdiction
depends on citizenship, citizenship must be distinctly and affirmatively alleged.”
Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th
Cir. 1988).
In cases removed from state court, diversity of citizenship must exist
both at the time of filing in state court and at the time of removal to federal court.
Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir.1996).
The citizenship of an individual is his or her domicile, meaning the place where
an individual resides and intends to remain. See Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran
Good Samaritan Soc., 334 F.3d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 2003). A corporation shall be
deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been
incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business. See Tewari De-Ox Systems, Inc. v. Mountain States/Rosen, L.L.C., 757
F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2014). The citizenship of a general partnership depends on
that of all partners. See Int'l Paper Co. v. Denkmann Associates, 116 F.3d 134, 135,
137 (5th Cir. 1997). The citizenship of a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”), a limited
partnership, or other unincorporated association or entity is determined by the
citizenship of all its members. See Harvey, 542 F.3d at 1079-80.
Defendants make the following representations as to the citizenship of all
parties (Doc. 1):
1. Plaintiff William Hilton in his capacity as Sheriff of Rapides Parish
is a citizen of Louisiana.
2. Defendant Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership. Defendants
state that none if its partners are Louisiana citizens. The partners
are not identified.
2
3. Defendant Purdue Pharma Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Connecticut. Therefore, it is a citizen
of both New York and Connecticut.
4. Defendant The Purdue Fredrick Company Inc. is a New York
corporation with its place of business in Connecticut. Therefore, it is
a citizen of both New York and Connecticut.
5. Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
Therefore, it is a citizen of both Delaware and Pennsylvania.
6. Defendant Cephalon, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Therefore, it is a citizen
of both Delaware and Pennsylvania.
7. Defendant Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business in New Jersey. Therefore, it is a citizen
of New Jersey.
8. Defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly known as OrthoMcNeil-Janssen Pharmacueticals, Inc.; formerly known as Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc.) is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal
place of business in New Jersey. Therefore, it is a citizen of both
Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
9. Defendant Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is now
known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Defendants have provided
only the citizenship of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which is a
citizen of both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
10. Defendant Endo Health Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Therefore, it is
a citizen of both Delaware and Pennsylvania. XX
11. Defendant Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Therefore, it is
a citizen of both Delaware and Pennsylvania.
12. Defendant Perry Fine, M.D., is a citizen of Utah.
13. Defendant Scott Fishman, M.D. is a citizen of California.
14. Defendant Randall Brewer, M.D. is a citizen of Louisiana.
3
15. Defendant Lynn Webster, M.D. is a citizen of Utah.
Defendants argue Dr. Brewer is fraudulently joined and procedurally improper
as a defendant.
There are two problems with Defendants’ Notice of Removal:
1. Defendants have not shown the identities of the partners of Purdue Pharma
L.P. and their citizenships. It is insufficient to simply state that none of
the (unnamed) partners are citizens of Louisiana.
2. Defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appears to have filed its
statement of merger with Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. on November 30, 2017. 1 Therefore, although
they were diverse in citizenship at the time of removal on December 1, 2017,
Defendants failed to set forth the citizenships of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. at the time this
action was initially filed in state court on September 18, 2017.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order upon all parties
to this action IMMEDIATELY upon receipt of proof of service or an appearance.
IT IS ORDERED that, no later than 21 days from service of this Order,
Defendants Purdue Pharma, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., and The Purdue Fredrick
Company, Inc. shall file a Jurisdictional Memorandum setting forth: (1) the identity
and citizenship of each partner in Purdue Pharma L.P.; (2) the citizenships of OrthoMcNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. on
September 18, 2017; and (3) verify the date(s) of the merger(s) between Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc. and set forth the citizenships of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
1
See https://www.corporations.pa.gov/search/corpsearch.
4
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. at the time of the merger(s),
if different than those set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Purdue Pharma, Inc., Purdue
Pharma L.P., and The Purdue Fredrick Company, Inc. shall file also file, no later
than 21 days from service of this Order, a motion under for leave to amend the
jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal to adequately allege diversity
jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will be allowed 7 days from receipt
of Defendants’ memorandum regarding jurisdiction to file a Response.
15th
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this _____
day of December, 2017.
______________________________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?