From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Phenylpropanolamine

United States District Court, W.D. Washington
May 5, 2004
MDL NO. 1407 (W.D. Wash. May. 5, 2004)

Opinion

MDL NO. 1407

May 5, 2004


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO REMAND


THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the motions of the plaintiffs named in Appendix A ("plaintiffs") to remand their cases to state court in Mississippi and Louisiana. The plaintiffs' complaints allege numerous claims against manufacturers of PPA-containing products, as well as in-state retail stores that sold those products (collectively, "the retail defendants"). Defendants removed these actions alleging that plaintiffs fraudulently joined the retail defendants solely to defeat diversity. Plaintiffs moved to remand to state court. The cases have been transferred to this Court as part of multi-district litigation ("MDL") No. 1407.

I. ANALYSIS

Although plaintiffs claim that each of them has sued a non-diverse retail defendant, the facts show otherwise.

The complaints of plaintiffs Donald, Gilchrist, and Oakley are bereft of any allegations against any in-state defendants.

Plaintiff Terry alleges that he purchased a PPA-containing product at Fred's, Inc. d/b/a Fred's Discount Pharmacy ("Fred's"). Although Mr. Terry alleges that Fred's is a Mississippi corporation, defendants have presented unrebutted evidence that shows that Fred's is incorporated in Tennessee, where it maintains its corporate offices and principal place of business. See Affidavit of Michael R. Hodge; see also Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the court may consider "summary judgment-type evidence" to determine if joinder was fraudulent); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1).

Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs Donald, Gilchrist, Oakley, and Terry have not brought claims against any non-diverse defendants.

Plaintiffs have alleged that regardless of the citizenship of their defendants, complete diversity does not exist because they have brought their claims with other plaintiffs who have sued non-diverse defendants. This argument, however, is moot because the parties have since filed individual severed complaints by order of this Court.

Furthermore, the Court previously struck all pending motions to remand to state court and urged counsel to consider whether to re-file such motions, given the Court's denial of similar motions to remand in other cases. None of the plaintiffs listed in Appendix A to this order have presented the Court with a reason to depart from its prior rulings, and none of them have asserted valid claims against any in-state defendants. A further explication of the Court's reasoning can be found in the Court's prior rulings denying similar motions to remand to state court, includingPollard v. Bayer Corp., et al., Vick v. Novartis Corp., et al., and Douglas v. Bayer Corp., et al.

Plaintiff Watts alleges that in addition to a Mississippi retail defendant, he has sued a second non-diverse entity, Health Management Associates, Inc. d/b/a Madison County Medical Center ("MCMC"). In his operative complaint, however, Watts identifies MCMC as a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, and despite defendants' claim of fraudulent joinder, plaintiff has not provided this Court with any evidence that MCMC is a non-diverse defendant.

II. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that plaintiffs Donald, Gilchrist, Oakley, and Terry have not brought claims against any non-diverse defendants. The Court further concludes that the remaining plaintiffs listed in Appendix A have failed to state a cause of action against the retail defendants, and that the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of Mississippi and Louisiana. As such, the Court finds that the retail defendants were fraudulently joined and complete diversity exists among the parties. The Court therefore DENIES plaintiffs' motions to remand the cases to the state courts.

APPENDIX A

MDL Docket Number Plaintiff's Name

03 — 3032 Jessica Acevedo

04 — 22 James Anderson, et al

03 — 3459 Ira Banks

03 — 2732 Lessie Brown

03 — 2737 Renee Butler

03 — 2708 George and Donna Campbell

04 — 20 James Chasey

03 — 3034 Mark Chatman

03 — 3419 Essie Clark

03 — 3753 Oliver Clay

03 — 3522 Rose Cooper

03 — 2739 Emma Davis

03 — 3204 Kenneth Davis

03 — 3752 Barbara Donald

03 — 2734 Lucille Fells

03 — 2796 Sherry Gaines

03 — 2743 Will Gaines

03 — 2723 Charlotta Gardner

03 — 3754 Argie Gilchrist

03 — 2736 Mary Good

03 — 3206 Patricia Green aka Patricia Greene

03 — 2794 Samuel Hawkins

03 — 2797 Cherrice Jamison

03 — 3033 Lee Johnson

03 — 2738 Mae Ruth and Joseph Landers

03 — 2795 Byron Mabry

03 — 3028 Ed Magee

03 — 2746 Marie Moore

03 — 3418 George Oakley

04 — 16 Louise Overstreet

03 — 3205 Ralph Roby

04 — 64 Ralph Scott

04 — 65 Serena Scott

03 — 2735 Lucian and Edna Smith

03 — 3460 Sharon Smith

03 — 3417 James Terry

03 — 3755 Nathan Townsend

03 — 2745 Sara Watson Truitt

03 — 2740 Marilyn Walker

03 — 3036 Tamara Wallace

03 — 2844 Anderson Washington

03 — 539 Rudy Watts


Summaries of

In re Phenylpropanolamine

United States District Court, W.D. Washington
May 5, 2004
MDL NO. 1407 (W.D. Wash. May. 5, 2004)
Case details for

In re Phenylpropanolamine

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE (PPA) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Washington

Date published: May 5, 2004

Citations

MDL NO. 1407 (W.D. Wash. May. 5, 2004)