Barron et al v. Pfizer, Inc.
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Pfizer, Inc.s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. [Doc. 5] An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/6/2015. (MRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
YVETTE BARRON and ALEXANDER
BARRON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PFIZER, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:15-CV-584 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant Pfizer, Inc.’s (“Pfizer”) motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The matter is fully briefed and ready for
decision. For the following reasons, the Court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Background
Plaintiffs filed this action in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, alleging
that Alexander Barron suffered birth defects as a result of his mother Yvette Barron’s ingestion of
the prescription drug Zoloft during pregnancy. Pfizer removed the action to this Court and filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Legal Standard
“If jurisdiction has been controverted, the plaintiff has the burden of proving facts supporting
personal jurisdiction. See Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2004).
The plaintiff’s prima facie showing must be tested, not by the pleading alone, but by the affidavits
and exhibits presented with the motions and opposition thereto. Id.” Miller v. Nippon Carbon Co.,
Ltd., 528 F.3d 108, 1090 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted).
Discussion
“The Supreme Court has recognized two theories for evaluating personal jurisdiction: general
and specific jurisdiction. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15,
(1984). A state may exercise general jurisdiction if a defendant has carried on in the forum state a
continuous and systematic, even if limited, part of its general business; in such circumstances the
alleged injury need not have any connection with the forum state. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,
465 U.S. 770, 779 (1984). The plaintiff must make a prima facie showing, however, that the
defendant's contacts were not ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated.’ Id. at 774. Specific
jurisdiction on the other hand is appropriate only if the injury giving rise to the lawsuit occurred
within or had some connection to the forum state, meaning that the defendant purposely directed its
activities at the forum state and the claim arose out of or relates to those activities. Burger King
Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985).” Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 586 (8th Cir.
2008).
With these standards in mind, the Court will now examine whether the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over defendant Pfizer is appropriate.
Specific Jurisdiction
As discussed, the exercise of specific jurisdiction is appropriate if the injury giving rise to
the lawsuit occurred within or had some connection to the forum state, meaning that the defendant
purposely directed its activities at the forum state and the claim arose out of or relates to those
activities. Here, plaintiffs’ claims have no specific connection to activities in Missouri. Alexander
Barron was born in Gainesville, Florida, which is where his mother was prescribed and ingested
Zoloft during pregnancy. Plaintiffs currently live in Port Orchard, Washington. Plaintiffs allege no
-2-
connection with Missouri. Defendant’s only contacts with Missouri are that they marketed and sold
Zoloft in Missouri. These contacts do not relate to the causes of action in this suit, which arise out
Ms. Barron’s ingestion of Zoloft in Florida and Alexander Barron’s subsequent birth. The Court
finds that the controversy at issue is not related to or arising out of any of Pfizer’s contacts with
Missouri, and the Court lacks specific jurisdiction over Pfizer in this case.
General Jurisdiction
General jurisdiction or “all purpose jurisdiction” is the authority to hear any and all claims
against a defendant.
See Goodyear Dunlop Tire Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853
(2011). A forum’s exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporation is limited to its formal place
of incorporation and principal place of business except in an “exceptional case.” See Daimler AG
v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 761 and n.19 (2014). Pfizer’s formal place of incorporation is Delaware;
its principal place of business is New York; and this is not an exceptional case. Plaintiffs have not
alleged any facts to suggest Pfizer’s activities in Missouri are anything other than that of a business
conducting activities in multiple states. For example, plaintiffs have not pled that Pfizer maintains
its corporate headquarters in Missouri, is managed from Missouri, or has revenue from sales in
Missouri that exceed that of other states. The mere marketing of Zoloft in Missouri does not make
Pfizer’s connection with the state continuous and systematic as to render it at home here. See
Goodyear Dunlop, 131 S. Ct. at 2851. Merely establishing that a corporation regularly conducts
business in a forum is not sufficient to confer general jurisdiction. See Daimler 134 S. Ct. 746, 761
(rejecting the concept that a business organization is at home in a forum state merely because it does
significant business there).
-3-
Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts supporting a finding of personal jurisdiction in this case.
The Court will dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2).1
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Pfizer, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. [Doc. 5]
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this
6th
day of October, 2015.
1
This Court has found no personal jurisdiction several times already when faced
with similar claims against this same defendant, see Clarke v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-1072
AGF (E.D. Mo. filed Sept. 8, 2015); Keeley v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-583 ERW (E.D. Mo.
filed July 1, 2015); Fidler v. Pfizer Inc., No. 4:15-CV-582 RWS (E.D. Mo. filed June 25, 2015).
-4-
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?