Parker v. Chevron U.S.A. (In re Paraquat Prods. Liab. Litig.)

• Decision Date: 08 November 2022
• Docket Number: MDL 3004,3:21-pq-1654-NJR
• Parties: In re PARAQUAT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to Parker v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

In re PARAQUAT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to Parker
v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., et al.

MDL No. 3004

No. 3:21-pq-1654-NJR

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 8, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Renewed Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs Walter Parker and Linda Parker (“the Parkers”). (Doc. 24). The Parkers ask the Court to remand their case to Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendants Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (“Syngenta”), and United States Sugar Corporation (“U.S. Sugar”) filed responses in opposition, and the Parkers filed a reply brief. (Docs. 28, 30, 32). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to remand is granted.

Background

The Parkers, citizens of Florida, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, against Syngenta, U.S. Sugar, and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“Chevron”) in August 2021. (Doc. 1-1). Syngenta is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina. (Id. at ¶ 3). Chevron is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in California. (Id.). U.S. Sugar is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. (Id.).

The Parkers' complaint asserts that Defendants designed, manufactured,

1

supplied, sold, and/or distributed products containing the herbicide Paraquat, and that Walter Parker was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in May 2018 after being exposed to Paraquat during his approximately 32 years of employment with U.S. Sugar. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-11). They further claim Mr. Parker was exposed to Paraquat at his residence after U.S. Sugar provided the herbicide for use at its employees' homes. (Id. at ¶ 14).

The complaint raises claims against all three Defendants for negligence, strict product liability, and loss of consortium under Florida state law. It also raises a count titled “Tort Exception to Workers' Compensation Immunity Against Employer U.S. Sugar.” (Id. at ¶¶ 30-33). With this claim, the Parkers allege:

U.S. Sugar engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury or death to Plaintiff Walter Parker by inter alia

a. Sending employees into sugar fields without protective equipment while they were being sprayed with paraquat

b. Requiring employees to mix paraquat without protective adequate protection; and c. Making paraquat available to employees for home use.

(Id. at ¶¶ 32-33).

On September 22, 2021, Defendants Syngenta and Chevron removed the case from Palm Beach County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1). The Parkers filed a motion to remand on October 1, 2021. (Doc. 15). Rather than rule on the motion, the Southern District of Florida administratively closed the case on October 7, 2021, after receiving notice that the case was a potential “tag-along” action to this MDL. (Doc. 16). The case was transferred to this Court for consolidated pretrial proceedings on December 10, 2021.

2

(Doc. 21). The Parkers renewed their motion to remand on December 24, 2021. (Doc. 24).

In opposing remand, Defendants acknowledge the Parkers are citizens of Florida and U.S. Sugar is a Florida corporation, but they assert U.S. Sugar has been either fraudulently joined or fraudulently misjoined as a defendant. Thus, its citizenship should be ignored for the purpose of evaluating federal diversity jurisdiction. Defendants also argue that the Parkers' claims arise under federal law, thereby providing an alternative basis for federal court jurisdiction.

Legal Standard

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court when a district court has original jurisdiction over the action. Home Depot U.S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 n.2 (2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). District courts shall have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under federal law, as well as over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1).

The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it exists. See Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 384 F.3d 402, 404 (7th Cir. 2004) (a removing defendant must demonstrate a “reasonable probability” that subject-matter jurisdiction exists). If the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be remanded to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). When a court evaluates a motion to remand, “a plaintiff's choice of forum is presumed valid, and the Court must resolve any doubts about jurisdiction in favor of remand.” D.C. ex rel. Cheatham v. Abbott Labs. Inc., 323 F.Supp.3d 991, 993 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (citing Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2009)).

3

Discussion

I. Fraudulent Joinder

When a diversity case is transferred by the multidistrict litigation panel, the substantive law applied is that of the transferor court. Chang v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 599 F.3d 728, 732 (7th Cir. 2010). But when considering matters of federal law, such as fraudulent joinder, the MDL court applies the law of its own circuit. In re Abbott Lab'ys, No. 22 C 71, 2022 WL 3586150, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2022) (citing McMasters v. United States, 260 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir. 2001)).

Under Seventh Circuit precedent, “[f]raudulent joinder occurs either when there is no possibility that a plaintiff can state a cause of action against nondiverse defendants in state court, or where there has been outright fraud in plaintiff's pleading of jurisdictional facts.” Id. (quoting Gottlieb v. Westin Hotel Co., 990 F.2d 323, 327 (7th Cir. 1993)). Fraudulent joinder is only established if a defendant overcomes its “heavy burden” of establishing that, “after resolving all issues of fact and law in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant.” Morris v. Nuzzo, 718 F.3d 660, 666 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 73 (7th Cir. 1992)). “Framed a different way, the district court must ask whether there is ‘any reasonable possibility' that the plaintiff could prevail against the non-diverse defendant.” Schur, 577 F.3d 752 at 764. “[T]his standard ‘is even more favorable to the plaintiff than the standard that applies to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).'” In re Abbott Lab'ys, No. 22 C 71, 2022 WL 3586150, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2022) (quoting Schur, 577 F.3d at 764)). Thus, even if a state court might

4

ultimately dismiss the defendant for failure to state a claim, the joinder of that defendant is not necessarily “fraudulent” for purposes of federal court jurisdiction if the issue of state law is subject to reasonable argument on both sides. Polson v. Cottrell, Inc., No. 04-CV-822-DRH, 2005 WL 1168365, at *1 (S.D. Ill. May 17, 2005).

A. Intentional Tort Exception

Defendants argue that the Parkers have no reasonable possibility of prevailing on their claim against U.S. Sugar because Florida's workers' compensation scheme provides the sole remedy for the injuries allegedly suffered by Mr. Parker arising from his workplace exposure. Defendants acknowledge that the Parkers have invoked Florida's tort exception to workers' compensation immunity, but claim they have asserted no facts supporting their allegations. Defendants argue that “merely citing” to the intentional tort exception is insufficient to establish a reasonable possibility that the Parkers could prevail against U.S. Sugar.

Under Florida Statute §...