Castro v. Organon USA, Inc. et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff' Catalina Castro's motion to remand 16 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to stay 9 is DENIED as moot.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/11/15. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CATALINA CASTRO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORGANON USA, INC., et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.

4:14 CV 1329 RWS

Case No. 4:08MD1964 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Catalina Castro originally filed this case in 197th Judicial District
Court, Cameron County, Texas. She asserted state law claims against Defendant
Organon and its successors as well as claims against a Texas nurse practitioner.
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court of the Southern
District of Texas asserting diversity jurisdiction. In their removal papers,
Defendants argued that the nurse practitioner was improperly joined in the lawsuit to
defeat diversity jurisdiction. The case was subsequently transferred to this Court as
part of the In re NuvaRing multidistrict litigation.
Castro has filed a motion to remand which Defendants oppose. The issue is
whether the nurse practitioner was fraudulently joined in this action in an attempt to
thwart federal diversity jurisdiction.
AA defendant may remove a state law claim to federal court only if the action
originally could have been filed there.@ In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation,

591 F.3d 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2010). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ' 1332
requires an amount in controversy greater than $75,000 and complete diversity of
citizenship among the litigants. 28 U.S.C. ' 1332(a). AComplete diversity of
citizenship exists where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any
plaintiff holds citizenship.@ OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342,
346 (8th Cir. 2007). The defendant bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Altimore v. Mount Mercy
College, 420 F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir. 2005). AAll doubts about federal jurisdiction
should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.@ In re Prempro, 591 F.3d at
620.
ACourts have long recognized fraudulent joinder as an exception to the
complete diversity rule.@ Id. AFraudulent joinder occurs when a plaintiff files a
frivolous or illegitimate claim against a non-diverse defendant solely to prevent
removal.@ Id.
In the present lawsuit, Castro claims are based on damages Castro sustained
through the use of the product NuvaRing. Castro asserts several products liability
claims against the Organon defendants including a failure to warn claim.
Castro’s complaint identifies Defendant Lisa L. Rudd as a nurse practitioner
who prescribed NuvaRing to Castro. Castro is a citizen of Texas whose presence in
the case would undermine diversity jurisdiction in this matter. Defendants assert
2

that Castro’s claims against Rudd are a sham, solely offered to prevent removal of
the case to federal court.
In the complaint Castro alleges that the Organon defendants knew or should
have known of increased risks in the use of NuvaRing compared to other
contraceptives. Castro’s only specific allegations against Defendant Rudd are that
Rudd “relied on the assurances by a Merck representative that NuvaRing was safe,
and switched Plaintiff, Catalina Castro, from her usual and customary birth control
to Nuvaring.” [Compl. at 9]
Castro also alleges that Rudd “prescribed the prescription drug NuvaRing to
Plaintiff. Defendant Lisa Rudd, N.P. relied on assurances by the Merck
representatives that NuvaRing was safe, and switched Plaintiff, Catalina Castro,
from her usual and customary birth control to NuvaRing. Plaintiff used the
NuvaRing for its intended purpose, on the recommendations of Defendant Lisa
Rudd, N.P., and as reasonably anticipated without knowledge of its characteristics.”
[Id. at 15]
In her motion to remand, Castro argues that she has asserted claims against
Rudd for negligence and a failure to warn. However, the complaint simply states
that factual allegations above, that Rudd, relying on representations from Merck,
prescribed NuvaRing for Castro. The complaint does not assert that Rudd breached
any duty of care to Castro or any other wrongful conduct by Rudd. Castro’s
3

complaint does not allege any facts which would support her claim that Rudd knew
or should have known that Merck’s representations about NuvaRing were allegedly
false. Castro’s complaint does not allege, nor can she in good faith allege, that
Rudd played any role in the design, manufacture, product label and warnings, or
marketing of NuvaRing.
As a result, I find that Castro has failed to state a claim against Rudd because
she has failed to assert any factual allegations which would support a negligence
claim or a failure to warn claim against Rudd.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff= Catalina Castro’s motion to
remand [16] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to stay [9] is
DENIED as moot.

_____________________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of June, 2015.

4