Jones v. Novartis Pharms. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 July 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:13–CV–624–VEH.
• Citation: 952 F.Supp.2d 1277
• Parties: Ernesteen JONES, Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

952 F.Supp.2d 1277

Ernesteen JONES, Plaintiff,

v.NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No. 2:13–CV–624–VEH.

United States District Court,

N.D. Alabama,

Southern Division.

July 2, 2013.

Leah O. Taylor, Tammy M. Smith, Taylor & Taylor, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Edward S. Sledge, III, Frederick G. Helmsing, Jr., McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge LLC, Mobile, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge.

Before the court is the Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) filed by the Plaintiff, Ernesteen Jones (“Ms. Jones”). The court has considered the arguments made in this document, as well as those made in Ms. Jones's “Memorandum of Law” supporting the motion (Doc. 8) and the Response (Doc. 10) filed by the Defendant, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“NPC”) ¹. For the following reasons, Ms. Jones's motion is DENIED.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

The following basic facts are not disputed by either party. Ms. Jones initiated this action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on March 8, 2013. Doc. 8–1 at 1. In her complaint filed with that court, she alleges that her prescribed use of Reclast, a drug manufactured by NPC, caused her to suffer a variety of injuries, including atypical fractures to her right and left femurs. See id. at 5–7. Her complaint asserts the following claims against NPC:

• Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (“AEMLD”);

• Failure to Warn Under the AEMLD;

• Negligence and Wantonness; and

• Breach of Warranty of Merchantibility

Id. at 7–14. Ms. Jones is a citizen of Alabama, and NPC is a citizen of both New Jersey and Delaware. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 4–5. Her complaint also names as defendants thirty fictitious parties and declares the following about them:

Plaintiff avers that the identity of the fictitious parties Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, or if their names are known to Plaintiff at this time, their identities as proper parties Defendant are not known to Plaintiff at this time and their true names will be substantiated by amendment when ascertained.

Doc. 8–1 at 4–5. Ms. Jones seeks compensatory and punitive damages from NPC, although her complaint does not specify the monetary amount sought. Id. at 10–11, 13–14.

Ms. Jones served NPC with the complaint on either March 15, 2013, or March 18, 2013. Compare Doc. 8 at 2 with Doc. 1 ¶ 2.² On April 4, 2013, NPC timely filed a Notice of Removal with this court, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7–10.

II. Legal StandardsA. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Generally

“It is by now axiomatic that the inferior federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They are ‘empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution,’ and which have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir.1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir.1994)). “Accordingly, ‘[w]hen a federal court acts outside its statutory subject-matter jurisdiction, it violates the fundamental constitutional precept of limited federal power.’ ” Id. (quoting Marathon Oil Co. v. Ruhrgas, 145 F.3d 211, 216 (5th Cir.1998)). “Simply put, once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Id. at 410.

“A necessary corollary to the concept that a federal court is powerless to act without jurisdiction is the equally unremarkable principle that a court should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” Id. “Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Id. (citations omitted).

Moreover, “[t]he jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a claim involves the court's competency to consider a given type of case, and cannot be waived or otherwise conferred upon the court by the parties. Otherwise, a party could ‘work a wrongful extension of federal jurisdiction and give district courts power the Congress denied them.’ ” Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 678 F.2d 992, 1000–01 (11th Cir.1982) (quoting Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 18, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951)) (internal footnotes and citations omitted). Furthermore, “[b]ecause removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, federal courts are directed to construe removal statutes strictly.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 411 (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108–09, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941)).

Lastly, Congress has decreed and the Supreme Court has confirmed that—with the express exception of civil rights cases that have been removed—orders of remandby district courts based upon certain grounds, including in particular those premised upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction, are entirely insulated from review. More specifically, § 1447(d) provides:

An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (emphasis added); see also Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633, 642, 126 S.Ct. 2145, 165 L.Ed.2d 92 (2006) (recognizing that “[w]here the [remand] order is based on one of the [grounds enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ], review is unavailable no matter how plain the legal error in ordering the remand”) (citing Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S. 404, 413–14 n. 13, 97 S.Ct. 2428, 53 L.Ed.2d 439 (1977)).

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

“Diversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the statutorily prescribed amount, in this case $75,000.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). Therefore, removal jurisdiction based upon diversity mandates: (1) a complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s); and (2) satisfaction of the amount in controversy requirement.

1. Citizenship Requirement

Diversity jurisdiction “requires complete diversity—every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph County, 22 F.3d 1559,1564 (11th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.” Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367.

2. Amount in Controversy Requirement

Regarding this quantitative requirement, “when Congress created lower federal courts, it limited their diversity jurisdiction to cases in which there was a minimum monetary amount in controversy between the parties.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.2001) (citing Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 334, 89 S.Ct. 1053, 22 L.Ed.2d 319 (1969)). Today, the threshold amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, excluding interests and costs, is that which exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs ...”).

C. Removal

A defendant can remove a suit to federal district court if that court has original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). As explained above, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions between parties of diverse citizenship where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

1. Two Methods for Removal

The removal procedure statute contemplates two ways that a case may be removed based on diversity jurisdiction. The first way (formerly referred to as “first paragraph removals”) ³ involves civil cases where the jurisdictional grounds for removal are apparent on the face of the initial pleadings. See28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). The second way (formerly referred to as “second paragraph removals”) contemplates removal where the jurisdictional grounds later become apparent through the defendant's receipt 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. § 1446(b)(3). In this case, removal was premised on the initial pleadings.

2. Unspecified Damages

Where, as here, the plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319 (citations omitted). In assessing whether the defendant has met this burden, the court should first determine from looking at the complaint whether it is “facially apparent” that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. In making this determination, the court is not bound by the plaintiff's representations regarding his or her claim, nor must it assume that the plaintiff is in the best position to evaluate the amount of damages sought. Roe v. Michelin North Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir.2010) (citing Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 771 (11th Cir.2010)). Indeed, in some cases, the defendant or the court itself may be better-situated to accurately assess the amount in controversy. Id. (citing Pretka, 608 F.3d at 771). The court may make “reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable extrapolations” from the pleadings to determine whether it is facially apparent that a case is removable.Id. at 1061–62 (quoting Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754). Put simply, a district court need not “suspend reality or shelve common sense in determining whether the face of a complaint ......