Dunn et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court acknowledges Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.'s Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Removal (Doc. 16). Defendants' Notice of Removal is WI THDRAWN and this case is REMANDED to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City, Missouri, from which it was removed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Johnson & Johnson Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Doc. 10) and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Conspiracy and Concert of Action Claims (Doc. 12) are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) and Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Initiate Discovery on the Issue of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 14) are DENIED as moot.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/10/14. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

PEGGY DUNN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14-cv-01953-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.’s (collectively, the “Johnson & Johnson Defendants”)
Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Removal (Doc. 16). The Johnson & Johnson Defendants
removed the above-captioned case on November 21, 2014, under this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to the procedural misjoinder doctrine. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Motion to
Remand (Doc. 7) asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because complete
diversity does not exist. The Johnson & Johnson Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Doc. 10) requesting the Court dismiss the
non-Missouri Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, and a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy and “Concert of Action” Claims (Doc. 12) requesting the Court dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy and “Concert of Action” Claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Initiate Discovery on the
Issue of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 14).

The Johnson & Johnson Defendants now seek to withdraw their notice of removal in an
effort to promote judicial efficiency in light of the Court’s decision to remand a similar case
before Judge Charles A. Shaw, Swann v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:14-CV-01546-CAS (E.D.
Mo.). Additionally, the Court presumes Plaintiffs consent to the Notice in light of their Motion
to Remand despite the Johnson & Johnson Defendants inability to obtain the consent of Plaintiffs
prior to the filing of the notice.
Upon review of the Record before the Court and in light of the Motion to Withdraw the
Notice of Removal,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court acknowledges Defendants Johnson &
Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.’s Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of
Removal (Doc. 16).

Defendants’ Notice of Removal is WITHDRAWN and this case is

REMANDED to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City, Missouri, from which it
was removed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Doc. 10) and Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy and “Concert of Action” Claims (Doc. 12) are DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) and Motion to
Stay or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Initiate Discovery on the Issue of Personal Jurisdiction
(Doc. 14) are DENIED as moot.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2014.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2