Goldstein v. WL Gore & Associates, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95 C 1222.,95 C 1222.
• Parties: Robert GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

887 F. Supp. 168

Robert GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant.

No. 95 C 1222.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

May 19, 1995.

Robert A. Holstein, Aron David Robinson, Joshua M. Avigad, Holstein, Mack & Klein, Robert F. Lisco, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.

John N. Scholnick, Jennifer A. Barrett, Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, Chicago, IL, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BUCKLO, District Judge.

On January 24, 1995, plaintiff, Robert Goldstein ("Mr. Goldstein"), brought this product liability action against defendant, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. ("Gore"), in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The three-count complaint charges Gore with negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty in connection with the manufacture and sale of a defective prosthesis. On February 27, 1995, Gore removed the action to federal court. Mr. Goldstein moves to remand the action to state court. For the reasons stated herein, this motion is granted.

Discussion

"Courts should interpret the removal statute narrowly and presume that the plaintiff may choose his or her forum." Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). Any doubt regarding jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand. Id. (citing Jones v. General Tire & Rubber Co., 541 F.2d 660, 664 (7th Cir.1976)); Roe v. O'Donohue, 38 F.3d 298, 304 (7th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). As the party seeking removal in this case, Gore bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., supra, 985 F.2d at 911 (citation omitted).

Under the general removal statute, a defendant may remove a state-court action to federal court only if the action originally could have been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). In this case, Gore argues that federal jurisdiction exists on the basis of federal question as well as diversity jurisdiction.

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction in civil actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The question of whether a claim "arises under" federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 must be determined by reference to the "well-pleaded complaint." Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 3232, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986) (citing Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-10, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2846, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983)). Under the "well-pleaded complaint" rule, "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) (citing Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-13, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97-98, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936)). The availability of a federal defense which might defeat the plaintiff's claims does not provide a basis for removal. Burda v. M. Ecker Co., 954 F.2d 434, 438 (7th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). The complaint in this case alleges state law claims of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty; it does not allude to any federal law. Since the complaint does not present a question of federal law on its face, federal jurisdiction does not exist under the "well-pleaded complaint" rule.

Gore does not contest this conclusion. Instead, Gore argues that since its prosthetic knee ligament is a Class III medical device approved and regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Mr. Goldstein's state law claims are completely pre-empted by the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act ("FDCA") and are thus removable to federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized an exception to the "well-pleaded complaint" rule known as the "complete preemption" doctrine. In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987), the Court explained:

Federal pre-emption is ordinarily a federal defense to the plaintiff's suit. As a defense, it does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, and, therefore, does not authorize removal to federal court. One corollary of the well-pleaded complaint rule developed in the case law, however, is that Congress may so completely pre-empt a particular area, that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character.

Id. at 63-64, 107 S.Ct. at 1546; see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, supra, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S.Ct. at 2430 ("Once an area of state law has been completely pre-empted, any claim purportedly based on that pre-empted state law is considered, from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law"). Under these circumstances, a court may re-characterize the plaintiff's state law claim as a federal claim so that removal is proper. Lister v. Stark, 890 F.2d 941, 943 (7th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1011, 111 S.Ct. 579, 112 L.Ed.2d 584 (1990). To determine whether a cause of action has been completely pre-empted, courts must look to Congressional intent. Id.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Taylor, supra, 481 U.S. at 66, 107 S.Ct. at 1548 ("the touchstone of the federal district court's removal jurisdiction is not the `obviousness' of the pre-emption defense but the intent of Congress").

The U.S. Supreme Court has found "complete pre-emption" under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act ("LMRA") and Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). See Burda v. M. Ecker Co., supra, 954 F.2d at 438 n. 5 (citations omitted). In Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 390 U.S. 557, 88 S.Ct. 1235, 20 L.Ed.2d 126 (1968), the Court found that Section 301 of the LMRA was of such powerful pre-emptive force that it displaced any state claim within its scope.¹ Id. at 560-562, 88 S.Ct. at 1237; Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, supra, 463 U.S. at 23, 103 S.Ct. at 2853. In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Taylor, supra, 481 U.S. 58, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987), the Court noted its reluctance to find complete pre-emption even in "a provision ... that lies at the heart of a statute with the unique pre-emptive force of ERISA," but recognized that the language of the jurisdictional subsection of ERISA's civil enforcement provisions closely parallels that of the LMRA,² and that the legislative history of ERISA's civil enforcement provisions expressly seeks to treat suits brought thereunder in the same manner as suits brought under LMRA Section 301. Id. at 65-66, 107 S.Ct. at 1547. Accordingly, the Court concluded that ERISA Section 502, like LMRA Section 301, manifests a clear Congressional intent to make all claims within its scope federal question claims. Id. at 65-67, 107 S.Ct. at 1547-48.

No such intent can be gleaned from the Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA. The provision upon which Gore relies in support of its position, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a), does not provide an enforcement mechanism akin to the civil enforcement provisions of ERISA and LMRA. As Judge Shadur has observed, "no provision even remotely comparable to LMRA § 301 and ERISA § 502 exists in the Medical Device Amendments." Green v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc., No. 95 C 1977, 1995 WL 215045, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 10, 1995). Although complete pre-emption is possible in the absence of a federal remedy, see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, supra, 482 U.S. at 391 n. 4, 107 S.Ct. at 2429 n. 4, Gore has also failed to identify any legislative history that demonstrates a Congressional intent to confer upon the Medical Device Amendments or the FDCA the same extraordinary pre-emptive power as that of LMRA and ERISA. To the contrary, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized that the scope of preemption under the Medical Device Amendments is more narrow than that of other federal statutes like ERISA. See Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330, 1334 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 327, 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992) ("The scope of the pre-emption ... is limited.... It is not the sort of blanket preemption that we find in ERISA, which supersedes `any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan'"). This is not to say, however, that the state law claims asserted by Mr. Goldstein are not preempted by the Medical Device Amendments.³ I conclude only that Gore's pre-emption argument is a potential federal defense, which cannot support removal "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, supra, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S.Ct. at 2430 (citation omitted).

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

Gore also argues that this case is removable on the basis of federal diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are diverse in the present case: Mr. Goldstein is a resident of Berkeley, California, and Gore is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Newark, Delaware.⁴ See Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 5, 6. Accordingly, the only issue before me is whether the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.⁵

Ordinarily, the amount in controversy claimed by a plaintiff in good faith is determinative on the issue of jurisdictional amount. NLFC, Inc. v. Devcom Mid-America, Inc., 45 F.3d 231, 237 (7th Cir.1995) (citations omitted). Accordingly, a plaintiff may avoid federal diversity jurisdiction by pleading...