Thomas et al v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand 11 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining pending motions are DENIED without prejudice as moot (copy mailed to Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis). Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/17/17. (KXS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FARNCISCIAKA THOMAS, et al., )
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, )
INC., et al.,
Case No. 4:17 CV 2036 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
Plaintiffs filed this action in state court, claiming personal injuries resulting
from use of the drug Risperdal and /or Invega due to Defendants’ conduct in
designing, marketing, manufacturing, and distributing those drugs. Plaintiffs are
citizens of a number of states, including Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Defendants assert that that they are headquartered and incorporated in New Jersey
and/or Pennsylvania. As a result, Defendants are citizens of those two states and
complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants is lacking on
the face of the complaint.
Defendants first removed this case on April 12, 2017 based on diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). I found that subject matter jurisdiction was
lacking and remanded the case on April 27, 2017. On July 19, 2017, Defendants
removed this case for a second time asserting that all of the non-Missouri plaintiffs
should be dismissed from the case and that the Court’s diversity jurisdiction would
apply to the remaining Missouri plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants impetus for this
second removal was the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). In that case
the Supreme Court held that a 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.
Defendants’ legal ground for their second attempt to remove this case is a
changed circumstances exception to the time limitation for removal in 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b). Under that statute a case must be removed within 30 days after the
receipt by the defendant of a plaintiff’s initial pleading through formal service of
process. Section 1446(b)(1); Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526
U.S. 344, 350 (1999) . When an initial pleading is not removable, a new 30-day
window is opened to allow the removal of a case after the receipt by the defendant
of an “amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may be first
ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. §
Defendants assert that the ruling in Bristol-Myers is an order and/or other
paper which triggers a new 30-day period for removal under section 1446(b)(3).
However, the order and other paper exception is predominately limited to orders
and other paper issued in the individual case that is being removed. Orders and
rulings in other unrelated cases do not trigger the recommencement of the 30-day
time limit. See Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965, 969-970 (8th
Cir. 2007); Erhart v. Bayer Corp., 4:17 CV 1996 SNLJ (Doc. # 49, Sept. 27, 2017).
As a result, Defendants’ removal of this matter a second time is procedurally
improper and I will grant Plaintiffs’ motion to remand this case to state court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand  is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining pending motions are
DENIED without prejudice as moot.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of November, 2017.
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?