Jacobs et al v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (ECF No.17) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the CircuitCourt of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. 17 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 12/7/17. cc:City of St. Louis(CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JASON JACOBS, et al.,
INC., f/k/a ORTHO-MCNEILJANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., et al.,
No. 4:17CV2004 JCH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, filed
August 1, 2017. (ECF No. 17). By way of background, Plaintiffs filed this action
in Missouri state court on April 10, 2015, claiming personal injuries resulting from
the design, marketing, and selling of the drug products Risperdal and/or Invega.
The eighteen Plaintiffs are citizens of a number of states, including Missouri,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.
For purposes of this case, Defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a
citizen of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Defendant Johnson & Johnson is a citizen
of New Jersey. Defendant Janssen Research & Development, LLC, is a citizen of
Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Defendant Reed Elsevier, Inc., f/k/a Excerpta
Medica, Inc., is a citizen of New York.1
On July 19, 2017, more than two years after this case was filed in State
court, Defendants removed it on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §
1 3 3 2 , a s s e r t i n g that all of the non-Missouri Plaintiffs should be dismissed
from the case, and that the Court’s diversity jurisdiction then would apply to the
remaining Missouri Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants’ impetus for removal was the
United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior
Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017).
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 137 S.Ct. 1773, the Supreme Court held that
state courts lack specific jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs’ claims that have
no connection to the forum where the lawsuit is filed, even if those plaintiffs join
their claims with in-state plaintiffs.
In addition, Defendants cite cases from this
Court, Jordan v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:17CV865 CEJ (E.D. Mo. July 14, 2017), and
Siegfried v. Boehringer Ingelheim Paramceuticals, Inc., No. 4:16CV1942 CDP
(E.D. Mo. June 27, 2017), in which the claims of the non-resident plaintiffs were
According to the July 2017 Notice of Removal, Reed Elsevier, Inc., was named
as a Defendant in the First Amended Complaint and was voluntarily dismissed by
Plaintiffs in April 2017. (ECF No. 1 at 9). The Second Amended Complaint,
which was filed on July 20, 2017, names Reed Elsevier as a Defendant. (ECF No.
dismissed based on the Bristol-Myers decision.2 Notably, Jordan and Siegfried,
did not involve the issue of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), as does the
Defendants’ legal ground for their removal of this case over two years
after it was commenced is the changed circumstances exception to the time
limitation for removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
Under that statute, a
case must be removed within 30 days “after the receipt by the defendant,
through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the
claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days
after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then
been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever
period is shorter.”
S e e 2 8 U . S . C . § 1446(b)(1). When an initial
pleading is not removable, “a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days
after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an
amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be
ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. §
Defendants assert that because they changed the legal landscape, by making
clear that specific jurisdiction over the non-Missouri Plaintiffs does not exist, the
There is currently a motion for reconsideration pending in Jordan.
ruling in Bristol-Myers qualifies as an order and/or other paper, and thus triggers a
new 30-day period for removal under section 1446(b)(3).
The orders and other
paper exception is predominately limited to orders and other paper issued in the
individual case that is being removed, however.
Orders and rulings in separate
cases with different parties do not trigger the recommencement of the 30-day time
See Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2007)
(“If Congress had intended new developments in the law to trigger the
recommencement of the thirty day time limit, it could have easily added language
making it clear that § 1446(b) was not only addressing developments within a
case.”); Erhart v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:17CV1996 SNLJ (ECF No. 49, Sept. 27,
As a result, Defendants’ removal of this matter was procedurally
improper, and the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand this case to state
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No.
17) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri.
Day of December 2017.
\s\ Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?