From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Mar 4, 2020
No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Mar. 4, 2020)

Opinion

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

03-04-2020

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation


ORDER

The parties have filed updated reports on cases with service of process and plaintiff profile form issues, cases for which no federal jurisdiction exists, and duplicate cases. See Docs. 21406, 21410, 21426. The Court will address each category of cases.

A. Cases with Service of Process Issues.

Case Management Order No. 4 requires each Plaintiff who files a short form complaint to send a request for waiver of service to Defendants pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 363 at 4. Rule 4 provides that "if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Defendants identify 11 cases that have not been served on Defendants. Docs. 21406 at 2-3, 21410-5 (Am. Ex. G), 21426 at 2. Plaintiffs in these cases, which are listed below, shall have until March 18, 2020 to send the short form complaint and a request for waiver of service to Defendants' counsel. See Doc. 21406 at 3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), (m); United States v. 2,164 Watches, Inc., 366 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2004) (district courts have broad discretion under Rule 4(m) to extend time for service). By April 1, 2020, the parties shall file an updated report indicating for each case whether service has been completed by the March 18 deadline and, if not, Plaintiff shall state the reasons for the delay. The Court may dismiss any case in which service has not been completed absent Plaintiff showing good cause for the failure to serve. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Doc. 19874 at 4.

Case Caption

Case Number

Margie Cornelius v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02716

Leona Nigh v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04059

Norman Rose v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04083

Franky Williams v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04070

Douglas J. Dohan v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04069

Penni Hendrickson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04073

Melissa Jeanne Kacou v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04110

Lauren Kent v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04076

Bryon Rieken v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04061

Rickey Scott v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04063

Gunther Vacek v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04051

B. Cases with Plaintiff Profile Form ("PPF") Issues.

Case Management Order No. 5 requires each Plaintiff who files a short form complaint to provide a PPF to Defendants within 60 days of filing the complaint. Doc. 365 at 1. If no PPF was received within the 60-day period, Defendants were to send an overdue letter to Plaintiff's counsel giving Plaintiff an additional 20 days to provide a PPF. Id. at 2. Defendants could seek dismissal of the case if Plaintiff failed to provide a PPF during this grace period. Id.

The Court previously dismissed cases in which no complete PPF had been provided to Defendants. Docs. 19874 at 3, 20667 at 5-6. Defendants identify 45 additional cases in which Plaintiffs have provided no PPF or a deficient PPF. Docs. 21406 at 4, 21410-6 (Am. Ex. H), 21426 at 3. Plaintiffs in these cases, which are listed below, shall have until March 18, 2020 to provide complete PPFs to Defendants. See Docs. 19874 at 3, 21406 at 4. Each PPF shall include the place of filter implant. The parties shall provide an updated report on these cases by April 1, 2020. The Court may dismiss any case in which no complete PPF is provided by the March 18 deadline. See Doc. 19874 at 3.

Case Caption

Case Number

Kelly McCoy v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-03466

Kristi G. Bailey v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-04029

David Breeden v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01535

Charles Finch v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01533

Ross A. Grey v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-04030

Jeanette McFarland v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01511

Thomas Orest v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-04095

Agnes Roberts v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-00138

Steven Rogers v. . C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-04083

Delores Watson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-03990

Christopher Beasock v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01465

Sherry Lynn Black-Goodrow v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-00406

Michael Campobasso v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01575

Kandy Carpenter v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01525

Reba Carter v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01457

Bruce R. Cunningham v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01236

Iarzella Dennard v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01539

Mark Dills v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01512

Nicolas R. Garon v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01238

Jeremy Gates v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01498

Deborah S. Hamby v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01449

Joanie Hansford v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01526

Nancy Harmon v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00721

Rudy Headley v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01497

Kenneth I. Holbrook v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01234

Anthony Jackson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01467

Karen Jandula v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02305

Linda Jenkins v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-03935

Lisa Johnson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02001

Jeramey Kohar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01780

Elizabeth Mello v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00104

Daniel Person v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03189

Prudence Peterson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-02090

Angela Rhodes v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02135

Sandra Risner v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02136

Kimberly Roberts v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-02828

Alejandro G. Santana v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-02264

Edward Schaab v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02133

Ricky Schrader v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02132

Melissa Sepeda v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-01585

Stephanie Smith v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02267

Clyde Solomon v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01466

Justin Ubel v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02073

Kim Whitaker v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02075

Scottie C. Wolford v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01250

C. Cases without Federal Jurisdiction.

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Courts "analyze federal question jurisdiction with reference to the well-pleaded complaint rule." Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803, 807 (9th Cir. 1992). Under that rule, "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint." Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaint must establish either that "federal law creates the cause of action or that . . . the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).

The master complaint in this MDL asserts seventeen state law claims. Doc. 364 ¶¶ 166-349. Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs' right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809.

Subject matter jurisdiction must therefore be based on diversity of citizenship. See Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states involving claims greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Section 1332 requires complete diversity between the parties - that is, the citizenship of the plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. is a citizen of New Jersey and Defendant Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a citizen of Arizona. See Doc. 364 ¶¶ 11-12; Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that "a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business") (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). Complete diversity does not exist, therefore, where the Plaintiff is a resident of either Arizona or New Jersey. See Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Although diversity jurisdiction provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over state law claims, complete diversity is lacking in this case because both [plaintiff] and [defendant] are citizens of California.").

The parties' updated reports identify 25 cases in which diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the Plaintiff is either a resident of Arizona or New Jersey. Docs. 21406 at 5, 21410-7 (Am. Ex. I), 21426 at 3-4. A district court may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting Rule 12(h)(3) permits a district court to "raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction[] sua sponte"); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2006) (an MDL "transferee judge exercises all the powers of a district judge in the transferee district under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"). The following cases lack subject matter jurisdiction and are dismissed without prejudice:

In two of the listed cases, diversity jurisdiction exists because the Plaintiffs are Arizona residents and have sued only C. R. Bard, Inc., a citizen of New Jersey. See Doc. 21426 at 3-4 (citing Jeanne Hunt v. C. R. Bard, Inc., 2:19-cv-00011, and Michael Parr v. C. R. Bard, Inc., 2:18-cv-04797). These two cases will be unconsolidated from the MDL and will remain pending in this District.

Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel assert that some of the cases involve ongoing settlement discussions, but do not identify any particular case. No case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is listed as a Track 2 settlement case (see Doc. 21410-4), and neither Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel nor any individual Plaintiff's counsel has explained why the cases should not be dismissed at this time. See Doc. 16343 at 6-7.

Case Caption

Case Number

Plaintiff's Residence

Roderick L. Tunstall v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:16-cv-02382

New Jersey

Hugh Fraser v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01670

Arizona

Gloria Arino v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-00529

Arizona

Kennith Beaulieu v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-02589

New Jersey

Nichole Boggans v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-02764

New Jersey

David Bunsick v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-02908

New Jersey

Sandora Carter v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03610

New Jersey

Deborah Coleman v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03926

Arizona

Phillip Colombo v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:16-cv-03829

Arizona

Alexander Doughty v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03624

New Jersey

Christine Gober v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-02900

New Jersey

Howard Highfill v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-01897

Arizona

Kent Hoeft v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:16-cv-03571

Arizona

Arthur B. Kubofcik v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02331

New Jersey

Donna L. Moore v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:16-cv-02601

New Jersey

William Rivera v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03759

Arizona

Damien Robinson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04023

New Jersey

Carol Rogers v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03882

New Jersey

Sonya J. Wallace v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-04095

New Jersey

Kenneth Wantland v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-03673

Arizona

Cheryl Ann Washington v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01274

New Jersey

Erika Weining v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02956

Arizona

Latanyia Williams v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02954

New Jersey

Joseph Cornellier v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-02953

New Jersey

Dennis Trocciola v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-04874

New Jersey

D. Duplicate Cases.

The Court previously dismissed duplicative cases filed in this MDL. Docs. 16343 at 4-5, 18540 at 2, 19874 at 1; see M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012) ("It is well established that a district court has broad discretion to control its own docket, and that includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims."). Defendants identify more than 40 additional Plaintiffs who have filed multiple cases in this MDL. Docs. 21406 at 5, 21410-8, -9 (Am. Exs. J, K). The following duplicate cases are dismissed:

Case Caption

Case Number

Amy Eggers v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-04231

James Douglas Hall v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01235

Alisha Martin v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03604

Mary Self v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02247

Larry Tatom v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-01139

Frank Tolerico v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01297

Maria Alarcon v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-00197

Jerry Lee Black v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00194

Juanita Coller v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03470

Leon Cook v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03574

Hilda Garcia v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01352

Lorella N. Hammond v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:16-cv-02104

Lorella N. Hammond v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-00183

Derrick Hardnett v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-01336

Donald H. Kehl v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-03773

Sabrina Dixon v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-04885

Patrick Martin v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:16-cv-02135

Pearlina McMillian v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02674

Brenda Ohl v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00284

Alexandra Parsley v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-01575

Rachel Caruth v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:16-cv-03167

Donald Shadegg v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03538

Robert Tucker v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03621

Ralph Vernom Wagner, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-02790

Stanford Young v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03311

Angela Asberry v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01468

Lenward Bentley v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01540

David Cox v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00367

Darryl Allen Fiset v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00198

Maria Fritz v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-02824

Donna Harris v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01956

Sandra Harvey v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-02045

Shiray Jackson v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-04404

Paula Jordan v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-03683

James Litchfield v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01460

Erin Sechrest v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:18-cv-04732

Brittni Shaw v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03079

Kimberly Wiesen v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-01967

Nickie Camp v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-03957

John Hager, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00740

Robin Hickmond v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:17-cv-01222

Sharon Jones v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

2:19-cv-00679

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 4th day of March, 2020.

/s/_________

David G. Campbell

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Mar 4, 2020
No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Mar. 4, 2020)
Case details for

In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Mar 4, 2020

Citations

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Mar. 4, 2020)