Lofton et al v. Pfizer, Inc.

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to stay the proceedings in this action pending MDL transfer [Doc. #8] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remand this action to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (City of St. Louis), from which it was removed. (copy of order and docket sheet mailed to 22nd Judicial Circuit Court) Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 5/2/2016. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRENDA LOFTON, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
PFIZER, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 4:16-CV-604-CEJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte to determine whether subject
matter jurisdiction exists in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Also before the
Court is defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings pending a decision by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation regarding the transfer of this action to a
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action pending in the District of South Carolina.
I.

Background

On March 23, 2016, seventeen plaintiffs from twelve states filed this action in
the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, alleging seven state law causes
of action against defendant arising out of its manufacture and sale of the
prescription medication Lipitor (atorvastatin calcium).

Plaintiffs allege that they

developed Type II diabetes as a result of ingesting Lipitor. Plaintiffs assert claims
of product liability for failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty,
fraud, constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages.
On April 29, 2016, defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and

New York. One plaintiff is also a citizen of New York, and two plaintiffs are citizens

of Delaware. Despite the lack of complete diversity on the face of the complaint,
defendant argues that diversity jurisdiction exists because the out-of-state
plaintiffs’ claims were either fraudulently joined or procedurally misjoined, and
thus, the out-of-state plaintiffs—including the non-diverse plaintiffs—should be
ignored for purposes of determining jurisdiction.
II.

Discussion
A.

Motion to Stay

Defendant moves to stay the proceedings until the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) rules on its motion to transfer this case to the MDL
proceeding In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and
Products Liability Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2502.

However, “[a] putative

transferor court need not automatically postpone rulings on pending motions, or in
any way generally suspend proceedings, merely on grounds that an MDL transfer
motion has been filed.” Spears v. Fresenius Med. Care N. Am., Inc., No. 4:13-CV855-CEJ, 2013 WL 2643302, at *1 (E.D. Mo. June 12, 2013) (quoting T.F. v. Pfizer,
Inc., No. 4:12-CV-1221-CDP, 2012 WL 3000229, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 23, 2012)).
“This is especially true where, as here, [a] pending motion is one for remand and
goes to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”

Id.

“This Court is in the best

position to determine subject matter jurisdiction, and waiting for a decision by the
JPML before ruling on the motion to remand ‘would not promote the efficient
administration of justice.’” Id. Accordingly, the motion to stay will be denied.
B.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

An action is removable to federal court if the claims originally could have
been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591

2

F.3d 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2010).

The defendant bears the burden of establishing

federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Altimore v. Mount Mercy
Coll., 420 F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir. 2005). A case must be remanded if, at any time,
it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Any doubts about the propriety of removal are
resolved in favor of remand. Wilkinson v. Shackelford, 478 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir.
2007).
Removal in this case was premised on diversity jurisdiction, which requires
an amount in controversy greater than $75,000 and complete diversity of
citizenship among the litigants.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

“Complete 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).

It is conceded the amount in controversy is over $75,000.

Likewise, it is undisputed three plaintiffs are citizens of the same state as defendant
and, thus, complete diversity is lacking on the face of the complaint.
Defendant argues that this Court nonetheless has diversity jurisdiction
because the out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims were either fraudulently joined or
procedurally misjoined, and it raises questions about personal jurisdiction as well.
The Court has explained on numerous occasions when this defendant has raised
precisely the same theories that none of those arguments are meritorious.

See,

e.g., Robinson v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-439-CEJ, 2016 WL 1721143 (E.D. Mo.
Apr. 29, 2016) (collecting cases). For the same reasons set forth in those other
cases, the plaintiffs’ claims here are properly joined, complete diversity is absent,

3

no subject matter jurisdiction exists, and this case must be remanded.

See 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Wilkinson, 478 F.3d at 963.
Finally, because this case was very recently removed and plaintiffs have not
incurred substantial expenses responding to the removal, the Court will not require
defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ costs associated with removal in this instance. See
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
*

*

*

*

*

For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings in
this action pending MDL transfer [Doc. #8] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remand this
action to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (City of St. Louis),
from which it was removed.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2016.

4