Ramirez v. Vintage Pharm., LLC, s. 17-1221 & 17-1226
| Decision Date | 28 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 17-1221 & 17-1226,s. 17-1221 & 17-1226 |
| Parties | Melissa RAMIREZ, et al. v. VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Endo Health Solutions, Inc., f/k/o Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc.; Patheon, Inc. Patheon, Inc.; Appellant in 17-1121 Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Appellants in 17-1126 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Barbara R. Binis, REED SMITH LLP, 1717 Arch Street, Three Logan Square, Suite 3100, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Angela R. Vicari [Argued], ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, 250 West 55th Street, New York, NY 10019, Counsel for Appellants Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Endo Health Solutions, Inc.
Christopher R. Carton, Loly G. Tor, K & L GATES LLP, One Newark Center, 10th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Amy L. Groff, K & L GATES LLP, 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101, Counsel for Appellant Patheon Inc.
Steven L. Beard, STEVEN L. BEARD, P.C., Suite 2100, 1380 West Paces Ferry Road, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30327, Keith D. Bodoh [Argued], ROBERTSON, BODOH & NASRALLAH, LLP, 990 Cobb Parkway North, Suite 205A, Marietta, GA 30062, Walter Z. Steinman, LAW OFFICES OF WALTER Z. STEINMAN, 400 Greenwood Avenue, Wyncote, PA 19095, Counsel for Appellees, Melissa Ramirez, et al.
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), Pub. L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), extends federal jurisdiction to "mass actions." See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11). One mandatory characteristic of a mass action is a proposal by more than one hundred persons to try their claims jointly. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). However, cases that are consolidated or coordinated only for pretrial purposes are explicitly exempted from CAFA's mass action provision, and thus are not removable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV). The question before us on appeal is whether the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff-Appellees in state court proposed a joint trial such that their action was properly removed to federal court.
Plaintiff-Appellees are a group of 113 birth control users affected by a packaging error on certain brands of Qualitest birth control pills. These affected users filed a products liability action against the Defendant-Appellant manufacturers in Pennsylvania state court that was subsequently removed. Plaintiffs now argue this removal was improper because they did not propose to try their claims jointly, but their Complaint sends mixed signals. Weighing in favor of federal jurisdiction under CAFA, Plaintiffs filed a single complaint which joins the claims of 113 persons and contains numerous instances of language that indicates a single trial was contemplated. Cutting against federal jurisdiction, the Complaint specifies that the Plaintiffs' "claims have been filed together ... for purposes of case management on a mass tort basis." (Compl. ¶ 1; J.A. 139.) Plaintiffs characterize this language as seeking to limit the coordination of their claims to pretrial matters. They also point to a motion filed in the state court requesting admission to the Mass Tort Program, which allegedly prevents their claims from being tried jointly.
After the District Court ordered the action be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we accepted the manufacturers' request for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). Upon careful consideration, we will reverse the Order of the District Court and find federal jurisdiction to be proper under CAFA. Importantly, we determine that the language Plaintiffs hold out as disclaiming their intent to seek a joint trial is not sufficiently definite to prevent removal as a mass action. Where, as here, more than 100 plaintiffs file a single complaint containing claims involving common questions of law and fact, a proposal for a joint trial will be presumed unless an explicit and unambiguous disclaimer is included.
The consumer products liability case before us begins, like many others, with a recall. A packaging error affecting a brand of Qualitest birth control pills was discovered in the wake of a consumer product complaint. This error reversed the sequence of pills contained within each birth control package, which precipitated an unintended and less effective dosage program. Eight brands of Qualitest birth control pills—each of which shared a common packaging process and were at risk for the same error—executed nationwide recalls reaching more than 3.2 million blister packs of birth control.
Plaintiffs, alleging that they were harmed by the packaging error, launched this products liability action against the Defendant-Appellant manufacturers of the birth control pills and packaging in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.1 The Complaint alleges that the similarly-situated plaintiffs are residents of 28 different states "whose claims arise out of a common set of operative facts ... and which claims have been filed together ... for purposes of case management on a mass tort basis." (Compl. ¶ 1; J.A. 139.)
The Complaint contains a section devoted to "FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS" and a "DAMAGES" section that divides the 113 plaintiffs into three categories based on their state residency. After each count in the Complaint, Plaintiffs collectively "request a jury trial." (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25, 29, 37, 41; J.A. 145–50.) In the Prayer for Relief, Plaintiffs, again collectively, seek "an award of damages in such amount to be determined at trial." (Compl. ¶ 41; J.A. 150.) Similarly, the Complaint's Notice to Defend warns the manufacturers that if they fail to defend, "the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court." (J.A. 137.)
One week after filing their Complaint, Plaintiffs submitted a motion to assign their action to the Court of Common Pleas' Mass Tort Program. The captions of that motion and the accompanying memorandum in support state "JURY TRIAL DEMANDED." Before that motion was briefed or ruled upon, the manufacturers removed the action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as a "mass action" under CAFA. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11). Plaintiffs sought to remand the action to the Court of Common Pleas on the ground that they have not presented a "mass action" within the purview of CAFA. The District Court held oral argument after receiving briefs and other material submissions. The District Court ultimately granted the Motion to Remand, concluding that "CAFA precludes federal jurisdiction in this matter because Plaintiffs did not propose to try their claims jointly." Ramirez v. Vintage Pharm., LLC , No. 15-cv-6162 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 21, 2016); (J.A. 2.) After the manufacturers' emergency motion for a stay pending appeal in the District Court was denied, they requested this appeal.
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11). After the District Court ordered remand, we opted to accept the manufacturers' appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). We apply plenary review to issues of subject matter jurisdiction, including the determination of whether to properly regard a case as a mass action under CAFA. Frederico v. Home Depot , 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007).
CAFA gives the federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over "mass actions," a term that includes "any civil action ... in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact," and which meet the specified jurisdictional amount requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). CAFA also requires that a mass action have an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000 and minimal diversity among parties. Id. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(11)(A). Importantly, "claims [that] have been consolidated or coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings" will not qualify as a mass action under CAFA. Id. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV).
The manufacturers' appeal rests entirely on whether Plaintiffs have proposed to try their claims jointly. Id. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). In their quest for remand to the Court of Common Pleas, Plaintiffs insist that they made no such proposal for a joint trial of all 113 claims included in their Complaint.
The District Court agreed and granted their request for remand.
For purposes of determining whether an action qualifies as a mass action, a proposal for a joint trial may be either explicit or implicit. Atwell v. Boston Sci. Corp. , 740 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 2013) ; In re Abbott Labs., Inc. , 698 F.3d 568, 572–73 (7th Cir. 2012). An explicit proposal encompasses a clear textual request for a joint trial contained within the complaint, a motion, or some other filing by a group of plaintiffs. An explicit proposal can also be made orally at some point during the litigation. By comparison, an implicit proposal may be found when all of the circumstances of the action, including the language of the complaint and the structure of the action, lead to the assumption that the claims will be tried jointly. See Abbott Labs. , 698 F.3d at 573 () (quoting Koral v. Boeing Co. , 628 F.3d 945, 947 (7th Cir. 2011) ).
There are at least three explicit indications that Plaintiffs proposed a joint trial in this action, all of which are plain from the text of their initial filings. In fact, the language that they chose to incorporate into their Complaint and Notice to Defend contains many references to a single trial. First, after each count in the Complaint, Plaintiffs "respectfully request a jury trial"—never multiple or separate trials. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25, 29, 37, 41; J.A. 145–50.) Next, they continue this singular language in their Prayer for Relief, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Parris v. 3M Co.
- In re Linear Elec. Co.
-
Adams v. 3M Co.
...including the language of the complaint and the structure of the action, lead to the assumption that the claims will be tried jointly.” id. Importantly, “proposal,” by definition, is an intentional and volitional act.[14] As noted in Parson v. Johnson & Johnson, 749 F.3d 879, 888 (10th Cir.......
-
Hall v. Welch Foods, Inc.
...undertaken after filing the Complaint is certainly relevant, as long as that conduct occurred prior to removal." Ramirez v. Vintage Pharm., LLC, 852 F.3d 324, 331 (3d Cir. 2017); id. at 331 n.3 ("Of course, we ordinarily examine the case at the time the complaint was filed . . . unless subs......