Turner et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motions to Dismiss Non-Missouri Plaintiffs for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction are GRANTED. ECF Nos. 6 & 8 . The claims of all Plaintiffs other than Victoria Turner, individually and as representative for K.C. Wicks, Jr., and Clark Jenkins, are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to remand is DENIED. ECF No. 18 . Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 08/03/2017. (KCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
VICTORIA TURNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
INTERNATIONAL GMBH;
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ROXANE,
INC.; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMA GMBH & CO. KG; and
BIDACHEM S.P.A.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:17-cv-01525-AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims of 55
of the 58 Plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the
action to state court.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions will be
granted and Plaintiffs’ motion denied.
BACKGROUND
Three Plaintiffs who reside in Missouri (“Missouri Plaintiffs”) joined 55 Plaintiffs
from other states and from Canada (“Non-Missouri Plaintiffs”) to sue Defendants
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“BIPI”), Boehringer Ingelheim International
GmbH (“BII”), Boehringer Ingelheim Roxane, Inc. (“BIR”), 1Boehringer Ingelheim
1
BIR is now known as West-Ward Columbus Inc., but for convenience, the Court
Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (“BIPG”), and Bidachem S.P.A. (“Bidachem”) in Missouri
state court.
Plaintiffs assert state-law tort claims, alleging that Defendants’
anti-blood-clotting drug, Pradaxa, caused each Plaintiff to suffer severe injuries and/or
death.
Two of the Non-Missouri Plaintiffs are Ohio citizens, and therefore share
citizenship with BIR, which is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Ohio.
As to the citizenship of the remaining Defendants, BIPI is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut; BII and BIPG are German
corporations with their principal places of business in Germany; and Bidachem is an
Italian corporation with its principal place of business in Italy.
Plaintiffs allege that their claims “arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions,” namely, Defendants’ design, manufacture, marketing, advertising,
distribution, promotion, labeling, testing, and selling of Pradaxa.
The Non-Missouri
Plaintiffs do not allege that they were prescribed Pradaxa in Missouri, ingested Pradaxa
in Missouri, or were injured in Missouri.
However, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants
regularly conduct or solicit business in the State of Missouri” and “derive substantial
revenue from goods used or consumed in [ ] Missouri.”
ECF No. 13 at 13.
Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and emotional
distress, as well as punitive damages.
On May 17, 2017, Defendants timely removed the action to this Court, asserting
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
will continue to refer to the company as BIR.
2
Defendants maintained that there was
complete diversity among all “properly joined” parties and that the amount in controversy
exceeded $75,000.
Defendants acknowledged that two Plaintiffs shared Ohio
citizenship with one of the Defendants, but Defendants asked that the Court either (1)
decide the issue of personal jurisdiction first, as permitted by the United States Supreme
Court in Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578 (1999), and dismiss the
claims of all Non-Missouri Plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction, or (2) deem the
claims of all Non-Missouri Plaintiffs fraudulently joined.
Defendants argued that, in
either event, the Court would be left with only the three Missouri Plaintiffs, thus
satisfying the diversity of citizenship requirement.
On the same day that they removed
the case to this Court, Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims of the Non-Missouri
Plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should consider subject-matter jurisdiction before
personal jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs have moved, by separate motion, to remand the case
to Missouri state court for lack of complete diversity.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that
Defendants have met the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the other requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441
and 1446.
DISCUSSION
Another judge of this Court recently addressed the arguments presented by the
parties here in the context of a Pradaxa case involving the same jurisdictional issues,
Siegfried v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-1942-CDP, 2017 WL
2778107 (E.D. Mo. June 27, 2017).
The Court in Siegfried concluded that, although
3
several judges in this district, including the undersigned, had previously deemed it more
prudent to decide the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction first, in light of recent decisions
of the United States and Missouri Supreme Courts, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior
Court of California, San Francisco County, No. 16-466, 2017 WL 2621322 (U.S. June
19, 2017), and State ex rel. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Dolan, 512 S.W.3d 41(Mo.
2017), the issue of personal jurisdiction “is now the more straightforward inquiry.”
Siegfried, 2017 WL 2778107, at *3 (E.D. Mo. June 27, 2017). Therefore, the Siegfried
Court held that ruling on personal jurisdiction before subject-matter jurisdiction would
best serve the interests of judicial economy.
Id. Other judges have followed suit. See,
e.g., Jordan v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:17-CV-865-CEJ, 2017 WL 3006993, at *2 (E.D. Mo.
July 14, 2017). The undersigned agrees that the approach taken in Siegfried, now reflects
the better coarse, and will decide the issue of personal jurisdiction first.
Personal Jurisdiction
“To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must
plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the defendant can be subjected
to jurisdiction within the state.” Creative Calling Sols., Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., 799 F.3d
975, 979 (8th Cir. 2015). The facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs bear the burden of proof of establishing personal jurisdiction.
Id.
The Fourteenth Amendment limits the extent of personal jurisdiction and requires
that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum state, “such that
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
4
justice.” J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 880 (2011) (quoting Int’l
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). Personal jurisdiction can be general
or specific. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014).
I.
General Jurisdiction
General jurisdiction exists over a corporation when the forum state is its place of
incorporation or the location of its principal place of business, or in “exceptional cases,”
when the corporation’s activities in the forum of state are “so substantial and of such a
nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.” Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 761 n.19.
None of the Defendants is incorporated in Missouri or has its principal place of business in
Missouri, and none has such extensive contacts with Missouri as to render it at home in the
state. See Siegfried, 2017 WL 2778107, at *3; Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 761. Therefore,
Defendants are not subject to general jurisdiction in Missouri.
II.
Specific Jurisdiction
“Specific personal jurisdiction can be exercised by a federal court in a diversity suit
only if authorized by the forum state’s long-arm statute and permitted by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen
GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2011). As relevant here, Missouri’s
long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants who transact
business or commit torts within the state. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500.1. The statute is
“construed broadly . . . to provide for jurisdiction, within the specific categories
enumerated in the statute, to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause.”
Viasystems, 646 F.3d at 589 (citing State ex rel. Metal Serv. Ctr. of Georgia, Inc. v.
5
Gaertner, 677 S.W.2d 325, 327 (Mo. 1984)). To satisfy due process, there must be “an
affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an
occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's
regulation.” Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S. Ct. at 1780. In other words, “the suit must
arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Id. (emphasis removed).
In Bristol-Myers Squibb, non-California plaintiffs joined California plaintiffs in a
California court action, asserting state-law personal injury claims caused by the drug
Plavix. The defendants sold Plavix in California and conducted some business in the state
but were not incorporated or at home in California. And the non-California plaintiffs had
not alleged that they were prescribed the drug in California, purchased or ingested the drug
in California, or were injured in California. Id. at 1781. The Supreme Court held that the
California court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants with respect to the
non-California plaintiffs’ claims violated due process. Id. at 1782; see also State ex rel.
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Dolan, 512 S.W.3d 41, 47 (Mo. 2017) (holding that there was neither
general nor specific personal jurisdiction in Missouri over a Virginia corporation sued by
an Indiana plaintiff where the injuries occurred in Indiana and arose out of the
corporation’s activities in Indiana, notwithstanding that the corporation conducted the
same types of activities in Missouri).
Here, too, both this Court and the Missouri state court from which this case was
removed lack personal jurisdiction over Defendants with respect to the claims of the
Non-Missouri Plaintiffs, who have not alleged that they were prescribed, purchased,
ingested, or were injured by Pradaxa in Missouri. See Siegfried, 2017 WL 2778107, at *5
6
(holding the same). Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
claims of the Non-Missouri Plaintiffs, leaving complete diversity between the remaining
parties. As a review of the pleadings demonstrates that the amount in controversy and
other requirements of subject-matter jurisdiction have been met with respect to the
remaining claims, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Non-Missouri
Plaintiffs for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction are GRANTED. ECF Nos. 6 & 8. The
claims of all Plaintiffs other than Victoria Turner, individually and as representative for
K.C. Wicks, Jr., and Clark Jenkins, are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED.
ECF No. 18.
This case will be set for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference by separate order.
_______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3d day of August, 2017.
7
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?