Legg v. Wyeth, No. 04-13489.

Decision Date25 October 2005
Docket NumberNo. 04-13489.
Citation428 F.3d 1317
PartiesCarl LEGG, Dorothy Legg, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WYETH, f.k.a. American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., f.k.a. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Stephen Mann Brooks, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., Atlanta, GA, Robert D. Rosenbaum, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants.

Joseph A. Zarzaur, Jr., J. Phillip Warren, McKenzie, Taylor & Zarzaur, P.A., Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and BIRCH and COX, Circuit Judges.

COX, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Carl Legg (the "Leggs"), filed a seven-count complaint in an Alabama state court against several defendants, including some Wyeth entities, Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and three Wyeth sales representatives. Wyeth removed this case to federal court, contending that the Plaintiffs fraudulently joined three of Wyeth's sales representatives as defendants in an effort to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. On the Plaintiffs' motion, the court remanded the case, and ordered that Wyeth pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) as Wyeth's removal had been "improper." (R.2-24 at 2.) Wyeth appeals the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs. We reverse.

I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Carl and Dorothy Legg, citizens of Alabama, brought this action in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama against Wyeth, a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey, Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a citizen of Delaware and Massachusetts, and three Wyeth sales representatives: Stacy Stubblefield, Michael Sullivan, and Betsy Weaver. Sullivan is alleged to be a citizen of Georgia; Stubblefield and Weaver are alleged to be citizens of Alabama. Carl Legg contends he took Wyeth's anti-obesity drug Redux and, as a result, developed valvular heart disease. Dorothy Legg claims loss of consortium.

Wyeth removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Wyeth alleged that federal jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction), and that the Leggs fraudulently joined three sales representatives to destroy diversity. Wyeth attached affidavits of the sales representatives in support of its contention that the sales representatives were fraudulently joined. Wyeth then moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consolidation with similar cases pending before the Multi-District Litigation Panel. Before reviewing that motion, the district court granted the Leggs's motion to remand, concluding that diversity did not exist. The court found that the sales representatives were not fraudulently joined because there was a "possibility" that the Leggs could prevail in their claims against them. The court reached this conclusion on the face of the complaint, concluding that it could not consider the affidavits provided by Wyeth. The court also concluded that the Leggs stated a possible cause of action for innocent or negligent misrepresentation against Betsy Weaver, even if her affidavit was taken as true. In a separate order, the district court granted the Leggs attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $1,982.49. Wyeth appeals the grant of attorneys' fees and costs.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We may review the merits of a remand order in considering whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorneys' fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Fowler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 915 F.2d 616, 617 (11th Cir. 1990). While 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars our review of a remand such as this one based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the statute does not "exclude the district court's assessment of costs from appellate review." Id. at 617. As the Fifth Circuit has explained, "[w]hile we may not review the decision to remand itself, we must, as part of our examination of the award of fees, consider the objective validity of the removing party's efforts, at the time that party attempted to remove the case." Hornbuckle v. State Farm Lloyds, 385 F.3d 538, 541 (5th Cir. 2004). We review the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs for an abuse of discretion. Fowler, 915 F.2d at 617. An error of law is an abuse of discretion. Wexler v. Lepore, 385 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2004). Therefore, an award of attorneys' fees based on a legally erroneous remand order constitutes an abuse of discretion.

III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Wyeth contends on appeal that the district court erred in concluding that Wyeth's removal was improper, and therefore that no fees or costs should have been awarded the Leggs. Wyeth argues that the district court erred in refusing to consider unrebutted evidence submitted by it in support of removal. Wyeth also argues that the district court erred in concluding that the Leggs stated possible claims against Betsy Weaver based on innocent or negligent misrepresentation, even if her affidavit was taken as true. The Leggs defend the decision of the district court, and assert that the decision to award fees and costs was not an abuse of discretion, even if we would have decided the matter differently.

IV. DISCUSSION

This lawsuit by the Leggs is but one of thousands of cases brought by plaintiffs across the country who claim they suffer from valvular heart disease because they took one of Wyeth's diet drugs.1 A common strategy employed by the plaintiffs in these cases is to name local parties, often Wyeth's local sales representatives, as defendants, thus defeating Wyeth's right to remove a case to federal court.2 The Multidistrict Litigation Court, which has overseen a large part of this litigation, concluded that this joinder can "only be characterized as a sham, at the unfair expense not only of [Wyeth] but of many individuals and small enterprises that are being unfairly dragged into court simply to prevent the adjudication of lawsuits against [Wyeth], the real target, in a federal forum." Anderson v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 220 F.Supp.2d 414, 425 (E.D.Pa. 2002). Indeed, there are dozens of district court decisions finding that Wyeth sales representatives were fraudulently joined as defendants to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction.3 Wyeth contends that this is such a case.

The Leggs named three local sales representatives as defendants in this case. Michael Sullivan, the first sales representative named as a defendant in this suit, submitted an affidavit to the district court stating that he is "a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia." (R.1-1 at Ex. B.) If that is true, Sullivan's presence would not defeat diversity jurisdiction. The second sales representative, Stacy Stubblefield, claims he never sold Redux. In his affidavit, Stubblefield swore that he "never advertised, assembled, created, designed, detailed, distributed, labeled, made, manufactured, marketed, packaged, promoted, sold, sterilized, supplied, tested, or warranted Pondimin or Redux, or trained [] anyone to do so." (R.1-1 at Ex. B.) Finally, the third sales representative, Betsy Weaver, admitted that she "promoted Redux to licensed healthcare providers and answered their questions about the drug based on information provided to me by Wyeth." (Id.) However, Weaver asserts that she had no knowledge of Redux's alleged association with valvular heart disease until the allegation was first publicized:

My knowledge of the drugs I detailed was derived exclusively from education provided to me by Wyeth. Wyeth provided me with the FDA-approved package inserts and other information regarding the drugs I detailed. I had no involvement in the development or preparation of package inserts for any drugs, and had no control over content or other written warnings.

I was not expected, as a field sales representative, to conduct independent research regarding the drugs I detailed, and did not do so. I was not expected to, and did not, review independent scientific studies published in journals unless they were supplied to me by Wyeth.

I was not aware of any alleged association between Pondimin and/or Redux and valvular heart disease until the time such an allegation was first publicized. I was not aware before that time of any published study, report or other literature which claimed that an association exists between Pondimin and/or Redux and valvular heart disease.

(Id.) Wyeth attached these three affidavits as exhibits to its notice to remove this case to federal court. In the notice of removal, Wyeth alleged that the action could have originally been filed in federal court because complete diversity of citizenship exists between the properly joined parties, and that the three sales representatives were fraudulently joined.

In response to the sales representatives' affidavits, the Plaintiffs did not dispute Sullivan's sworn statement that he was a citizen of Georgia, nor did they respond to Stacey Stubblefield's sworn statement that he never promoted or sold Redux. In an effort to rebut Weaver's sworn statement that she did not know of Redux's alleged connection with valvular heart disease, the Plaintiffs pointed out to the district court that all of Wyeth's sales representatives had to participate in a Sales Training Program. The Plaintiffs submitted to the court a copy of Wyeth's Sales Training Program. (R.2-14 Ex. B.) But the document does not contain any warning to the sales representatives that Redux may cause valvular heart disease. Nor does the corresponding package insert, provided as a part of the Sales Training Program, provide any warning to the sales representatives that Redux may cause valvular heart disease. Thus, the material the Plaintiffs submitted to the court in fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial
274 cases
  • Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 6 Junio 2014
    ...the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorneys' fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).’ ” (quoting Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir.2005))); In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576, 587 (4th Cir.2006) (relied upon by the majority; “Having determine......
  • Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 8 Junio 2010
    ...dicta would also undermine the purpose of the removal process, which "was created by Congress to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir.2005). "Congress did not extend such protection with one hand, and with the other give plaintiffs a bag of tricks to overcome it......
  • Solar Eclipse Inv. Fund VII v. T-Mobile U.S., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 16 Febrero 2021
    ... ... merely theoretical.” Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 ... (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan ... ...
  • Mannsfeld v. Evonik Degussa Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • 5 Enero 2011
    ...corollary" of diversity jurisdiction that "complete diversity of citizenship" is required) (citation omitted); Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1320 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (Section 1332 "requires complete diversity-the citizenship of every plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of every ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Removal and Remand
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • 1 Enero 2014
    ...with the general rule being 21. Gray, 390 F.3d at 405 (quoting Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 648-49 (5th Cir. 2003)). 22. Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2005); Morris v. Princess Cruises, 236 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001). 23. Legg, 428 F.3d at 1323; McKee v. Kan. City S. R......
  • CHAPTER 3 CAFA UPDATE: THE CLASS ACTION JURISDICTIONAL WORLD CLARIFIES
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Private Oil & Gas Royalties - The Latest Trends in Litigation (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...district courts from considering affidavits filed in support of removal notices is at odds with that circuit's decision in Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2005). There, according to the court, "Wyeth presented the court with affidavits from its sales representatives to establish tha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT