*Caption Continued on Following Page Case No. 16-2524 _________________________________________________ United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for the Eighth Circuit for the Eighth Circuit for the Eighth Circuit _________________________________________________ ELAINE ROBINSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, -versus- PFIZER INC., Defendant-Appellant.* _________________________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Jackson, J.) Case No. 4:16-cv-00439-CEJ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT PFIZER INC. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark S. Cheffo Lincoln Davis Wilson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 [email protected][email protected]Booker T. Shaw THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6087 Facsimile: (314) 552-7087 [email protected]Mark C. Hegarty Douglas B. Maddock, Jr. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2613 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 [email protected][email protected]Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Pfizer Inc. Appellate Case: 16-2524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2016 Entry ID: 4477791 RESTRICTED
35
Embed
Case No. 16-2524 No. 16-2524 _____ United States Court of AppealsUnited States ... In re Lipitor Products Liability Litigation, ... Statutes and Rules
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
*Caption Continued on Following Page
Case No. 16-2524 _________________________________________________
United States Court of AppealsUnited States Court of AppealsUnited States Court of AppealsUnited States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuitfor the Eighth Circuitfor the Eighth Circuitfor the Eighth Circuit _________________________________________________
ELAINE ROBINSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, -versus-
PFIZER INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.*
_________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Jackson, J.)
Case No. 4:16-cv-00439-CEJ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT PFIZER INC. _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Cheffo Lincoln Davis Wilson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 [email protected][email protected] Booker T. Shaw THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6087 Facsimile: (314) 552-7087 [email protected]
Mark C. Hegarty Douglas B. Maddock, Jr. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2613 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 [email protected][email protected]
ELAINE ROBINSON; HELEN PSARAS; REBECCA COUTURE; VANESA FORD; GEORGIA LEE HARLAN; CLAIRE A. HOLMES; TINA LOOMIS; JUANA MILES; DELORIS MITCHELL; HIMILCE NEGRON; CAROL L. QUALLS; RHONDA ROBINSON; HARRIET L. SCOTT; CHARLOTTE L. SHAW; SUSAN M. SIMCOX; LINDA C. TANGUAY; VIOLET E. WYERS; KIM DILING; REBEKAH MCDONALD; SOCORRO PEREZ; CYNTHIA WEDDLE; MARY HIGDON; YOLANDA BAKER; PRISCILLA BILLINGSLEA; YIONA BRYANT; DIANNE EZELL; JANET GALLO; LADESSA LEWIS; QUYNH NGUYEN; ISABEL POWER; DENISE PROULX; SHARON WHEELEHAN; PATRICIA HERRERA; CAROL HENRIQUES; LINDA CHRISTNER; RITA PROBST; PATRICIA JOHNSON; LOIS MORTON; SHARON BOWERS; HENRIETTA EATMAN; SHARON MURDOCK; MILDRED WATLEY; DELAYNE WHARTON; PATRICIA TROTMAN; GLADYS BATES; HELEN COURTNEY; MYRTLE WHITE-ROYES; CAROL PETERSON; ELENA BARNOVICS; VICTORIA ELLEMAN; ELEFTHERIA KARAMIHALIS; LINDA L. JACKSON; GLADYS F. BRENT; MARY ROBINSON; MARTHA FARR; ELIZA TAYLOR; ROSE RUSH-GASWIRTH; ARDELL R. MARTINEZ; CAROL A. MORAN; LOU ANNE BOX; BARBARA L. KUIKAHI; ELIZABETH A. PARKS-MCDONALD; WILLIE WILLIAMS; CLARA YARBOROUGH,
Plaintiffs-Appellees. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION; AMERICAN TORT REFORM ASSOCIATION; MISSOURI ORGANIZATION OF DEFENSE LAWYERS; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA,
Amici on Behalf of Defendant-Appellant. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES, PUBLIC JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE,
I. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ................................... 2
II. TO REVIEW THE SANCTIONS AWARD, THIS COURT MUST DETERMINE
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT’S REMAND WAS LEGALLY CORRECT ............... 5
III. THE DISTRICT COURT INCORRECTLY HELD THAT IT HAD PERSONAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE NON-RESIDENT PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS .......................... 7
A. The Doctrine of Pendent Personal Jurisdiction Does Not Apply ............ 7
B. Plaintiffs’ Specific Jurisdiction Argument Does Not Justify Jurisdiction by Joinder .................................................................................. 11
C. Plaintiffs’ Alternative Theory of Consent by Registration Is Irrelevant and Unpersuasive ........................................................................ 15
IV. REMOVAL WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE DUE TO LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIMS BY NON-RESIDENT PLAINTIFFS .................... 17
A. Pfizer Had Reasonable Grounds for Removal Based on Ruhrgas ........... 18
B. Pfizer Had Reasonable Grounds for Removal Based on Fraudulent Joinder ......................................................................................... 21
C. Procedural Misjoinder Was Objectively Reasonable ................................ 23
205 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................... 18 In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation,
2016 WL 6393595 (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2016) .......................................................... 10, 18 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court,
377 P.3d 874 (Cal. 2016) .......................................................................................... 11, 12 Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 16 Butler v. Biocore Medical Technologies, Inc.,
131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) ...............................................................................................passim Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
330 U.S. 501 (1947) ........................................................................................................ 13 Hargrave v. Oki Nursery, Inc.,
646 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1980) ............................................................................................. 8 International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310 (1945) .................................................................................................. 13, 17 Iowa Public Service Co. v. Medicine Bow Coal Co.,
556 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1977) ......................................................................................... 22 Ironworkers Local Union No. 68 & Participating Employers Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen,
Inc., 2008 WL 312309 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2008) .......................................................... 13 Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.,
900 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................................... 17 Kraft v. Johnson & Johnson,
97 F. Supp. 3d 846 (S.D. W. Va. 2015) ........................................................................ 18 Legg v. Wyeth,
428 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................... 6 Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.,
2014 WL 50856 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2014) ....................................................................... 9 In re Lipitor Products Liability Litigation,
Locke v. Ethicon Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 757, 765 (S.D. Tex. 2014) .................................................................... 18
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,
546 U.S. 132 (2005) .................................................................................................. 15, 19 In re Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tenn.,
2015 WL 1456984 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2015).............................................................. 17 Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding,
308 U.S. 165 (1939) ........................................................................................................ 16 Nicholson v. Pfizer Inc.,
95 U.S. 714 (1877) .......................................................................................................... 16 Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining Co.,
243 U.S. 93 (1917) .......................................................................................................... 16 Perkins v. General Motors Corp.,
965 F.2d 597 (8th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................ 2-5 Phillips Exeter Academy v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc.,
196 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1999) ............................................................................................ 9 In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation,
985 F.2d 1389 (8th Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................... 17 In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation,
164 F. Supp. 3d 1040 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .................................................................... 10, 18 United States ex rel. Farmers Home Admin. v. Nelson,
969 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1992) ....................................................................................... 2, 3 Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corp.,
780 F. Supp. 1467 (S.D. Tex. 1992), aff’d, 990 F.2d 1489 (5th Cir. 1993) ............... 22 Walden v. Fiore,
134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) .................................................................................................... 11 In re Williams,
156 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................... 3, 4 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) ........................................................................................................ 13 Ytuarte v. Gruner & Jahr Printing & Publishing Co.,
935 F.2d 971 (8th Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................... 17 In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation,
2016 WL 2349105 (D. Mass May 4, 2016) ...................................................... 10, 14, 18
Statutes and Rules 28 U.S.C. § 1407 ................................................................................................................... 14
The federal common law doctrine of pendent personal jurisdiction concerns
the joinder of claims, not parties. See Wright & Miller, 4A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §
1069.7 (4th ed.). Under the doctrine, a district court exercising personal jurisdiction
over claims against a defendant under a long-arm statute may also take “pendent”
personal jurisdiction over other claims brought by the same plaintiff against the same
defendant arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts, even where no long-arm
statute exists:
When a federal statute authorizes a federal district court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant beyond the borders of the district and the defendant is effectively brought before the court, we can find little reason not to authorize the court to adjudicate a state claim properly within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction so long as the facts of the federal and state claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.
ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 628 (4th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added);
accord Robinson Eng’g Co. Pension Plan & Trust v. George, 223 F.3d 445, 449 (7th Cir.
2000).
By its terms, this doctrine is inapplicable. First, pendent personal jurisdiction
applies only if, unlike here, the pendent claim is brought by the same plaintiff against
the same defendant. See, e.g., Hargrave v. Oki Nursery, Inc., 646 F.2d 716, 721 (2d Cir.
1980). Second, the doctrine applies only if the pendent claim arises out of the same
nucleus of operative facts as the primary claim, such that it is “not disputed that
Congress could constitutionally extend the service of process” to the pendent claim.
Robinson v. Penn Cent. Co., 484 F.2d 553, 554 (3d Cir. 1973). The doctrine does not
apply where, as here, claims arise out of different operative facts relating to different
plaintiffs, and the defendant thus “lacks minimum contacts with the forum state
U.S. at 587). No less than eight federal district courts, including five decisions issued
this year, have upheld the Ruhrgas removals of multi-plaintiff pharmaceutical and
device actions under circumstances indistinguishable from this case.2 Plaintiffs’ brief
2 In re Testosterone, 164 F. Supp. 3d at 1050; In re Zofran, 2016 WL 2349105, at
*5; In re Bard IVC Filters, 2016 WL 6393595, at *4; Addelson, 2016 WL 6216124, at *3; see also Locke v. Ethicon Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 757, 765 (S.D. Tex. 2014); Evans v. Johnson & Johnson, 2014 WL 7342404 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2014) (unpublished); Kraft v. Johnson & Johnson, 97 F. Supp. 3d 846 (S.D. W. Va. 2015); Aclin v. PD-RX Pharms. Inc., 2016 WL 3093246 (W.D. Okla. June 1, 2016) (unpublished).
For similar reasons, there is no merit to Plaintiffs’ contention that the Court
cannot reach personal jurisdiction unless it finds “that the district court abused its
discretion in addressing subject-matter jurisdiction first” under Ruhrgas. (Pls. Br. 38;
procedural misjoinder—were themselves not objectively reasonable. The decisions that have applied Ruhrgas in similar contexts have not disputed that those bases for subject matter jurisdiction are objectively reasonable, but have held that deciding personal jurisdiction first presents a more “straightforward” method of resolving jurisdictional issues. (See supra n.2.)
see also id. at 33-38.) The key premise of this argument—that the district court
declined to decide personal jurisdiction under Ruhrgas—is false. The district court in
fact affirmatively found personal jurisdiction over the “cause of action as a whole”
and did not even cite Ruhrgas, much less exercise its Ruhrgas discretion. (Order at 5
n.1, R211, A5.) Moreover, whether the district court was “permitted to address its
own subject-matter jurisdiction first” under Ruhrgas (Pls. Br. 5) is irrelevant to this
appeal from removal sanctions. The question on appeal is whether the district court
properly rejected Pfizer’s grounds for removal as not objectively reasonable, not
whether the district court might have taken some other action to grant remand.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that, if jurisdiction by joinder fails, then Ruhrgas would have
permitted the district court to resolve any issues of subject matter jurisdiction. The
sanctions should be vacated.
B. Pfizer Had Reasonable Grounds for Removal Based on Fraudulent Joinder
Apart from Ruhrgas, Pfizer properly removed this case on the alternative
ground of fraudulent joinder. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 90-97, R71-73.) Jurisdiction by
joinder was the only aspect of the district court’s decision that addressed Pfizer’s
fraudulent joinder grounds and found them not objectively reasonable.4 Thus, to
determine whether the district court properly rejected those grounds requires this
Court to address whether the district court’s adoption of jurisdiction by joinder was
4 Although the district court characterized part of its opinion as addressing
fraudulent joinder, that discussion related to the procedural misjoinder doctrine, not Pfizer’s assertion of fraudulent joinder of Plaintiffs due to lack of personal jurisdiction. (Order at 4-8, R210-14, A4-8.)
legally correct. Because the district court’s adoption of jurisdiction by joinder fails as
a matter of law, Plaintiffs should be held to have fraudulently joined the claims of the
non-resident Plaintiffs to defeat diversity.
Plaintiffs object to the extension of fraudulent joinder to “claims that fail for a
lack of personal jurisdiction.” (Pls. Br. 23.)5 This issue was not addressed by the
district court and thus cannot serve as a basis to affirm the award of sanctions.
Moreover, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Pfizer’s cases support fraudulent joinder
based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Instead, they assert, without authority or
explanation, that Ruhrgas implicitly overruled those cases. (Id. at 24 n.7.) There is,
however, no inconsistency between the flexible jurisdictional hierarchy adopted by
Ruhrgas and the assertion of a fraudulent joinder theory based on personal jurisdiction.
As the court noted in Villar v. Crowley Mar. Corp., the distinction between the two is
essentially one of burden-shifting. 780 F. Supp. 1467 (S.D. Tex. 1992), aff’d, 990 F.2d
1489 (5th Cir. 1993). Fraudulent joinder, in contrast to Ruhrgas, would require the
defendant to “prove that there is no possibility that the Plaintiffs can establish
personal jurisdiction,” rather than giving the plaintiff the burden to prove jurisdiction.
Id. at 1473. Because jurisdiction by joinder fails as a matter of law, Plaintiffs cannot
show that Pfizer has failed to carry this burden, much less that its attempt to do so
was not objectively reasonable.
5 Plaintiffs also suggest that the fraudulent joinder doctrine cannot be
extended “to a non-diverse plaintiff as well as a non-diverse defendant,” but then make no attempt to develop the argument. (Pls. Br. 23.) This Court has indicated otherwise. See Iowa Pub. Serv. Co. v. Med. Bow Coal Co., 556 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 1977).
For all of the reasons previously set forth, this Court should vacate the district
court’s award of sanctions under section 1447(c).
Dated: December 8, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark S. Cheffo Mark S. Cheffo Lincoln Davis Wilson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 [email protected][email protected] Mark C. Hegarty Douglas B. Maddock, Jr. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 [email protected][email protected] Booker T. Shaw Thompson Coburn LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6087 Facsimile: (314) 552-7087 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Pfizer Inc.
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of December, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing reply brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system.
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing reply brief via electronic mail, to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
Trent B. Miracle One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellees Sheldon Gilbert Janet Galeria 1615 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20062-0000 [email protected][email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae U.S. Chamber of Commerce Mark S. Chenoweth 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-0000 [email protected] Attorney for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation
Christopher Wasson Erin Colleran PEPPER HAMILTON 3000 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 [email protected][email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The American Tort Reform Association