Barela v. C R Bard Incorporated ( 2020 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC Liability Litigation, 11 ORDER 12 13 The Court previously dismissed multiple cases from this MDL for lack of subject 14 matter jurisdiction. See Docs. 20667, 21461, 21759. The parties have filed an updated 15 status report identifying 29 additional cases for which no federal jurisdiction exists. 16 Docs. 21726 at 2-3, 21726-3. For reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss those cases 17 without prejudice. 18 Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on either federal question 19 jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Courts “analyze federal 20 question jurisdiction with reference to the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Yokeno v. Mafnas, 21 973 F.2d 803, 807 (9th Cir. 1992). Under that rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when 22 a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.” Scholastic 23 Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaint 24 must establish either that “federal law creates the cause of action or that . . . the plaintiff’s 25 right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” 26 Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & 27 Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. 28 Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 1 The master complaint in this MDL asserts seventeen state law claims. Doc. 364 2 ¶¶ 166-349. Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief 3 on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court 4 lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 5 Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809. 6 Subject matter jurisdiction must therefore be based on diversity of citizenship. See 7 Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between 8 citizens of different states involving claims greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 9 Section 1332 requires complete diversity between the parties – that is, the citizenship of 10 the plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. See Caterpillar, Inc. 11 v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 12 For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. is a citizen of New 13 Jersey and Defendant Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a citizen of Arizona. See Doc. 364 14 ¶¶ 11-12; Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting 15 that “a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where 16 it has its principal place of business”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). Complete diversity 17 does not exist, therefore, where the Plaintiff is a resident of either Arizona or New Jersey 18 and has sued both C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular. See Williams v. United 19 Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Although diversity jurisdiction 20 provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over state law claims, complete 21 diversity is lacking in this case because both [plaintiff] and [defendant] are citizens of 22 California.”). 23 The parties’ identify 29 pending cases in which diversity jurisdiction does not exist. 24 Docs. 21726 at 2-3, 21726-3 (Ex. C).1 A district court may dismiss a case for lack of 25 subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. 26 1 The parties initially identified 30 such cases, but counsel for Defendants has 27 informed the Court that one case, Shane Tice v. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., CV-16- 00832, was included in error (diversity jurisdiction exists because Tice is a New Jersey 28 resident and has sued only Bard Peripheral Vascular, a citizen of Arizona). This case will be transferred to the New Jersey district court. See Doc. 21726 at 2. 1 P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that 2 Rule 12(h)(3) permits a district court to “raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction[] 3 sua sponte”); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1230- 4 31 (9th Cir. 2006) (an MDL “transferee judge exercises all the powers of a district judge 5 in the transferee district under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). The following cases 6 lack subject matter jurisdiction and are dismissed without prejudice: 7 8 Case Caption Case Number Plaintiff’s Residence 9 1 Stephen Alaimo v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-02519 New Jersey 10 2 Clifton Atkins v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-02592 Arizona 11 3 Mostafa Badawi v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:17-cv-01853 New Jersey 12 4 Richard Barela v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:17-cv-02466 Arizona 13 5 Jennifer Bounassi v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-04084 New Jersey 14 6 Julie Bozak v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:16-cv-03290 Arizona 15 7 Matthew Brown v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:17-cv-02981 Arizona 16 8 Theressa Campbell v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-02658 New Jersey 17 9 Daniel Dipasquale v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-03292 New Jersey 18 10 Maria Garcia v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-01806 New Jersey 19 11 Priscilla Grainger v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-00395 New Jersey 20 12 Richard Hand v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-00401 New Jersey 21 13 Brian Hinchey v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-02757 New Jersey 22 14 Frances Hubler v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-01821 New Jersey 15 Teyrance Jackson v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-03879 New Jersey 23 16 John Lane v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:16-cv-04216 Arizona 24 17 Glenn Malloff v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-01651 Arizona 25 18 John Osborn v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-01380 Arizona 26 19 Celeste Paige v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-02672 New Jersey 27 20 Shakina Rainey v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-02702 New Jersey 28 21 Jeffery Raleigh v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:16-cv-04259 Arizona 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated this 11th day of December, 2020. 11 Daal 6 Cus 13 aw phil 4 David G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-