Abbott et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al
Filing
19
ORDER denying ECF No. 5 Motion to Stay All Proceedings; granting ECF No. 8 Motion to Remand; declining to consider ECF No. 10 Motion to Dismiss; remanding case to state court (certified copies of order and docket sheet sent to Second Judicial 4/14/2017). Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 4/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
CARMEN ABBOTT and THOMAS ABBOTT, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
)
RENOWN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, )
VICKIE L. TIPPETTE, M.D., MYRON )
W. BETHEL, M.D., and JOHN DOES 1- )
XX, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )
3:17-cv-00149-HDM-VPC
ORDER
20
Before the court is Boston Scientific Corporation’s (“Boston
21
Scientific”) motion to stay all proceedings pending transfer to the
22
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
23
Virginia as part of In re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair
24
System Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2326.
25
2017, the Clerk of the Panel determined that this action is not
26
appropriate for inclusion in the MDL.
27
Boston Scientific Corporation’s motion to stay all proceedings pending
28
transfer to MDL (ECF No. 5) is denied.
1
(ECF No. 5).
(ECF No. 7).
On March 14,
Accordingly,
1
Also before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
2
8).
3
(ECF No.
replied (ECF No. 15).
4
Boston Scientific opposed the motion (ECF No. 13) and plaintiffs
Section
1332
provides
a
United
States
district
court
with
5
original jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in
6
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
7
and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.”
8
U.S.C. § 1332.
9
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
10
States have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant or
11
defendants, to the district court of the United States for the
12
district and division embracing the place where such action is
13
pending.”
14
time before the final judgment it appears that the district court
15
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”
16
U.S.C. § 1447(c) .
17
28
Section 1441(a) provides that “any civil action
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Section 1447(c) provides, “If at any
28
“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as
18
to the right of removal in the first instance.”
19
980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
20
state court and then removed, there exists a “strong presumption”
21
against removal jurisdiction such that the defendant bears the burden
22
of establishing that removal is proper.
23
uncontested
24
defendants: Dr. Vickie L. Tippette, Dr. Myron W. Bethel, and Renown
25
Regional Medical Center (“Healthcare Provider Defendants”). (See ECF
26
No. 1-1 (Complaint) at ¶¶ I, IV, and V).
27
removed this case on March 8, 2017, based on diversity of citizenship
28
(ECF
No.1)
that
and
plaintiffs’
now
opposes
In suits originally brought in
complaint
remand
2
Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
on
Id. at 566-67.
names
three
It is
non-diverse
Defendant Boston Scientific
the
basis
of
fraudulent
1
misjoinder (ECF No. 13).
2
that the court sever and remand the claims against the Healthcare
3
Provider Defendants to state court pursuant to Rule 21.
Boston Scientific alternatively requests
4
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, permissive
5
joinder among defendants must meet two specific requirements: (1) the
6
right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
7
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
8
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) a
9
question of law or fact is common to all defendants must arise in the
10
action.
11
that Rule 20 . . . regarding permissive joinder is to be construed
12
liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to expedite the
13
final
14
lawsuits.”
15
558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
determination
of
disputes,
Courts “start with the premise
thereby
preventing
multiple
League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,
16
Rule 21 provides that the court may, “on just terms, add or drop
17
a party” from an action or “sever any claim against a party.” “If the
18
test for permissive joinder [under Rule 20] is not satisfied, a court,
19
in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, so long as no
20
substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance.”
21
Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997).
22
Coughlin v.
Boston Scientific argues that neither prong of Rule 20(a)(2) is
23
met in this case.
24
liability claims against it are distinct from the medical negligence
25
claims against the Healthcare Provider Defendants, requiring different
26
facts and evidence.
27
against it and the Healthcare Provider Defendants are factually
28
distinct and that any liability that may be found against Boston
First, Boston Scientific asserts that the product
Second, Boston Scientific argues that the claims
3
1
Scientific would not be a basis for liability as to the Healthcare
2
Provider Defendants.
3
The court finds that for the purposes of remand, plaintiffs’
4
claims
5
Defendants
are
6
Plaintiffs
allege
7
malfunctioned due to a design or a manufacturing defect, and in breach
8
of all warranties, express and implied, or defendants TIPPETTE and
9
BETHEL negligently and below standards of care failed to properly
against
Boston
Scientific
sufficient
that
to
and
satisfy
during
the
the
the
surgery,
Healthcare
joinder
“the
Provider
requirements.
PRODUCT
either
10
utilize the device, which led to its malfunction.”
11
¶ XI). These acts and omissions form the basis for Plaintiffs’ claims
12
and combine to cause a single injury in this case.
13
against the defendants relate to the same transaction or occurrence
14
sufficient to satisfy Rule 20(a).
15
claims against Boston Scientific and the Health Care Providers share
16
questions of fact.
17
caused a single injury and seek to recover the same damages from all
18
defendants.
19
(ECF No. 1-1 at
Thus, the claims
The court also finds that the
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ conduct
The court declines to sever under Rule 21 as plaintiffs would be
20
prejudiced
21
efficiency.
22
proceedings (ECF No. 5) is denied.
23
No. 8) is granted.
24
consider Boston Scientific’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10).
25
. . .
26
. . .
27
. . .
28
. . .
by
the
severance
and
it
would
not
promote
judicial
Accordingly, Boston Scientific’s motion to stay all
Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (ECF
Having remanded this case, the court declines to
4
1
This case is remanded to the District Court of the State of
2
Nevada in and for the County of Washoe for all further proceedings.
3
Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees incurred as
4
a result of the removal.
5
this order of remand to the clerk of the state court and shall
6
administratively close file no. 3:17-cv-00149-HDM-VPC.
The clerk shall mail a certified copy of
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
DATED: This 13th day of April, 2017.
9
10
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?