Oxendine v. Merck and Co., Inc., CIV.AMD 02-2906.

• Decision Date: 18 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. CIV.AMD 02-3295 to CIV.AMD 02-3298.,No. CIV.AMD 02-3817 to CIV.AMD 02-3822.,No. CIV.AMD 02-3290.,No. CIV.AMD 02-2906.,No. CIV.AMD 02-3258 to CIV.AMD 02-3272.,No. CIV.AMD 02-3279 to CIV.AMD 02-3288.,No. CIV.AMD 02-2908 to CIV.AMD 02-2910.,No. CIV.AMD 02-3292.,No. CIV.AMD 02-3293.,No. CIV.AMD 02-3261.,No. CIV.AMD 02-3248 to CIV.AMD 02-3253.,CIV.AMD 02-2906.,CIV.AMD 02-2908 to CIV.AMD 02-2910.,CIV.AMD 02-3248 to CIV.AMD 02-3253.,CIV.AMD 02-3258 to CIV.AMD 02-3272.,CIV.AMD 02-3279 to CIV.AMD 02-3288.,CIV.AMD 02-3290.,CIV.AMD 02-3292.,CIV.AMD 02-3293.,CIV.AMD 02-3295 to CIV.AMD 02-3298.,CIV.AMD 02-3817 to CIV.AMD 02-3822.,CIV.AMD 02-3261.
• Citation: 236 F.Supp.2d 517
• Parties: Angela OXENDINE, Plaintiff v. MERCK AND COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants Michael Renngli, Plaintiff v. Merck And Company, Inc., et al., Defendants David Hoggan, Plaintiff v. Merck And Company, Inc., Defendants James Whitfield, Plaintiff v. Merck And Company, Inc., Defendants Eduardo and Maria Camacho, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Angela Douglas, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Charmia Swann, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants William and Monica Hass, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Pamela and Todd Johnson, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Nancy Spencer, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Olusegun and Adeyinka Ogunniyi, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants William and Katherine Laisure, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Arthur and Jessica Booth, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Sherman and Jacqueline Spruell, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Sabrina Murphy, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Luis and Roxana Tirigall, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Eileen Hall, Plaintiff v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Christopher and Jackie Means, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants John and Deborah Clutts, Plaintiffs v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Ambrose Agbebaku, et al., Plaintiffs v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Darryl and Sydney Piesto, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Dana Jones, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Angelita Allen, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Katrina Brown, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Karl and Lori Shoffler, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Robert and Randi Bell, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Farah Yousselfi, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Melissa Jane Loveless, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Cathy McGowan, Plaintiff v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Jean Dennis, et al., Plaintiffs v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Amy Derosiers, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Daniel and Jennifer Vittoria, Plaintiffs v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Mike and Sharon Skoczynski, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Lori Good, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Jon and Melinda Hughes, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Melissa Drew, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants John and Frances Kusik, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Philo and Ike Moghalu, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Danyelle Davis, Plaintiff v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Antonio and Lucretia Cunningham, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Rose Gouker, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Thomasyn Anderson, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Tammy Williams, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants James and Monica Nwokeabia, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Tuan Davis, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants William Cassano, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Mark and Hildy Gordon, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Earl and Rhoda Walton, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Eric Baublitz, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

236 F.Supp.2d 517

Angela OXENDINE, Plaintiff v. MERCK AND COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants Michael Renngli, Plaintiff v. Merck And Company, Inc., et al., Defendants David Hoggan, Plaintiff v. Merck And Company, Inc., Defendants James Whitfield, Plaintiff v. Merck And Company, Inc., Defendants Eduardo and Maria Camacho, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Angela Douglas, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Charmia Swann, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants William and Monica Hass, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Pamela and Todd Johnson, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Nancy Spencer, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Olusegun and Adeyinka Ogunniyi, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants William and Katherine Laisure, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Arthur and Jessica Booth, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Sherman and Jacqueline Spruell, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Sabrina Murphy, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Luis and Roxana Tirigall, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Eileen Hall, Plaintiff v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Christopher and Jackie Means, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants John and Deborah Clutts, Plaintiffs v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Ambrose Agbebaku, et al., Plaintiffs v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Darryl and Sydney Piesto, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Dana Jones, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Angelita Allen, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Katrina Brown, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Karl and Lori Shoffler, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Robert and Randi Bell, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Farah Yousselfi, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Melissa Jane Loveless, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Cathy McGowan, Plaintiff v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Jean Dennis, et al., Plaintiffs v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Amy Derosiers, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Daniel and Jennifer Vittoria, Plaintiffs v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Mike and Sharon Skoczynski, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Lori Good, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Jon and Melinda Hughes, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Melissa Drew, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants John and Frances Kusik, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Philo and Ike Moghalu, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Danyelle Davis, Plaintiff v. Merck And Co., Inc., et al., Defendants Antonio and Lucretia Cunningham, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Rose Gouker, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Thomasyn Anderson, Plaintiff v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Tammy Williams, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants James and Monica Nwokeabia, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Tuan Davis, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants William Cassano, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Mark and Hildy Gordon, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Earl and Rhoda Walton, Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants Eric Baublitz, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., et al., Defendants

No. CIV.AMD 02-2906.

No. CIV.AMD 02-2908 to CIV.AMD 02-2910.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3248 to CIV.AMD 02-3253.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3258 to CIV.AMD 02-3272.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3279 to CIV.AMD 02-3288.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3290.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3292.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3293.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3295 to CIV.AMD 02-3298.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3817 to CIV.AMD 02-3822.

No. CIV.AMD 02-3261.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

December 18, 2002.

Thomas F Yost, Jr, Thomas F Yost Jr PA, Baltimore, MD, for Angela Oxendine.

Paul F Strain, Stephen Edward Marshall, Dino S. Sangiamo, Venable Baetjer and Howard LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Merck and Co. Inc.

D Ana E Johnson, Keith M. Bonner, Carolyn Israel Stein, Bonner Kiernan Trebach

and Crociata, Washington, DC, for Aventis Pasteur, Inc., Antex Biologics, Inc.

Eric Cameron Martini, Jonathan Todd Blank, McGuireWoods LLP, Baltimore, MD, Deborah M Russell, McGurieWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, for GlaxoSmithKline.

Paul J Maloney, Carr Maloney PC, Washington, DC, for Sigma-Aldrich Corp.

Ronald D Byrd, Constellation Energy Group, Baltimore, MD, for Constellation Energy Group, Inc.

Laurie R Bortz, Mark T. Hackman, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., Baltimore, MD, for Baltimore Gas & Electric, Inc.

Paul S Schleifman, Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP, Washington, DC, for Eli Lilly and Co.

MEMORANDUM

DAVIS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

As the gravamen of their principal claims in these cases, plaintiffs allege that their minor children suffered an increased risk of developmental harms and specifically, autism, which were proximately caused by the administration of various childhood vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal, the composition of which contains mercury. It has recently been reported that in the last two years more than 4000 such lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts. See Paul Hamper, Plaintiff Parents Rip Shield for Vaccine Makers; Suits Claiming Autism Link Face Threat from Provision in Homeland Security Law, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, Dec. 10, 2002, at 1A. The 49 cases covered by this memorandum and order comprise a small part of those thousands of cases.

The multifaceted legal and procedural issues surrounding the so-called thimerosal litigation have been examined at length in several thoughtful and well-reasoned, though admittedly not wholly consistent, opinions issued by numerous federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims and need not be repeated here. See Case v. Merck & Co., No: 02-1779, 2002 WL 31478219 (E.D.La. Nov.5, 2002); Wax v. Aventis Pasteur Inc., No. 2-2018, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2002 WL 31444878 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2002); Bertrand v. Aventis Pasteur Laboratories, Inc., 226 F.Supp.2d 1206 (D.Ariz.2002); Liu v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 219 F.Supp.2d 762 (W.D.Tex.2002); Cheskiewicz by Cheskiewicz v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., No. 02-3583, 2002 WL 1880524 (E.D.Pa. Aug.15, 2002); King v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 210 F.Supp.2d 1201 (D.Or.2002); Owens v. American Home Products Corp., 203 F.Supp.2d 748 (S.D.Tex.2002); O'Connell v. American Home Products Corp., No. G-02-184, 2002 WL 31455729 (S.D.Tex. May 7, 2002); Leroy v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Services, No. 02-392V, 2002 WL 31730680 (Fed.Cl. Oct 11, 2002); Lemire v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2002 WL 31441209 (Fed.Cl. Sep. 25, 2002); Vessels v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Services, No. 02-182V, 2002 WL 31441210 (Sep. 25, 2002); In re Claims for Vaccine Injuries Resulting in Autism Spectrum Disorder or a Similar Neurodevelopmental Disorder, 2002 WL 31696785 (Fed.Cl. Jul 3, 2002).

The Maryland round of thimerosal litigation arrived in the summer and fall of this year when the same law firm filed 50 cases in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. All of these cases were timely removed to this court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Subsequently, plaintiffs timely moved to remand each of the cases. For the reasons set forth herein, I shall grant the motions for remand.

II. THE FOUR GROUPS OF CASES

The 49 cases covered by this opinion may be usefully considered as falling into four separate groupings, although the boundaries between the groups are not as neat as one would hope. In this section, I shall summarize the undisputed facts underlying the issues presented by the motions for remand in all of the cases, and then discuss the procedural history of each of the separate groupings.

In every case, plaintiffs generally allege that their children suffered injuries resulting from repeated exposure to thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative added to some vaccines and other pharmaceutical products. Plaintiffs further allege that their children's injuries were exacerbated by their exposure to toxic mercury emitted by coal-burning power plants owned and operated by Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. ("BGE") and Constellation Energy Group ("CEG"), each of which is a citizen of Maryland for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs seek substantial relief, including damages, on numerous statutory and common law theories. No federal claim is asserted in any case. With only one or two variations, the identity of the approximately 14 defendants in each case is the same.

A. Group One (five cases)

Complete diversity exists in the Group One cases, where all the plaintiffs in this group are citizens of Virginia and none of the defendants is a citizen of Virginia. Defendant Aventis Pasteur, Inc., which for diversity purposes is not a citizen of either Maryland or Virginia, removed the first four cases listed in the caption to this opinion, on September 3, 2002.¹ Plaintiffs filed these four cases on or about July 31, 2002 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Apparently, Aventis learned of the filing of the thimerosal suits well before it (or any other defendant) had been served with process.² In addition, the Group One cases include Good, No. AMD 02-3287. Unlike the first four cases, defendant Smithkline Beecham Corporation removed the Good case on October 4, 2002, after defendants had been served with process.

All the defendants have consented to removal. Although complete diversity exists in these cases, because plaintiffs originally joined two Maryland corporations as defendants, and later joined two more Maryland corporations after defendants'...