Abbott Laboratories v. Rhealyn Alexander
698 F.3d 568
7th Cir.2012Background
- Several hundred plaintiffs filed ten state-court lawsuits in Illinois (St. Clair, Madison, and Cook Counties) against Abbott over Depakote injuries.
- Plaintiffs moved the Illinois Supreme Court to consolidate and transfer these cases to a single circuit for consolidated pretrial, trial, or post-trial proceedings under Rule 384(a).
- Abbott removed the cases to federal court, arguing the consolidation motion constituted a CAFA mass action removal (100+ people to be tried jointly).
- District Judge Murphy remanded, concluding the motion did not propose a joint trial; Judge Darrah denied remand, agreeing the motion contemplated a trial in consolidation.
- The Seventh Circuit later held that the consolidation motion did propose a joint trial, thus satisfying CAFA’s mass action requirement and permitting removal.
- The core issue was whether an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 384 consolidation request, framed for trial, can be read as a proposal for a joint trial triggering CAFA mass action removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a motion to consolidate through trial constitute a proposal for a joint trial under CAFA? | Abbott’s claim: plaintiffs implicitly proposed joint trial. | Abbott contends the motion only sought coordinated pretrial proceedings. | Yes; the motion effectively proposed a joint trial. |
| Is implicit joint-trial language sufficient to trigger CAFA mass action removal? | Language shows consolidation through trial implies a joint trial. | Requires explicit trial-union language. | Implicit joint-trial proposal suffices. |
| Must the joint-trial proposal be made in the court where the cases are pending? | Proposal to consolidate was filed with the Illinois Supreme Court; transfers back to circuit courts possible. | Removal improper if filed in the wrong court. | Not required to be filed in the original court; proposal made to a court capable of effecting relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Bayer, 610 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2010) (mass action not shown when no joint trial proposed)
- Tahoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009) (mass action requires joint trial or its practical equivalent)
- Bullard v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., 535 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2008) (one complaint can imply a single trial; joint trial form suffices)
- Koral v. Boeing Co., 628 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2011) (implicit joint-trial proposals can be sufficient; exceptions noted)