38 F. Supp. 3d 1312
S.D. Ala.2014Background
- Plaintiff Peyton Brown sued Endo Pharmaceuticals and Alex Stebbins in Alabama state court after her decedent ingested/crushed Opana and died; claims: negligence and wantonness, punitive damages under Alabama law.
- Endo removed to federal court alleging federal-question jurisdiction (federal Controlled Substances Act issues) and diversity jurisdiction, asserting Stebbins was fraudulently joined.
- Brown moved to remand, arguing no federal question and that Stebbins is a proper Alabama defendant.
- Endo argued (1) federal law (CSA and FDA regulation) supplies the governing duty and thus implicates § 1331, and (2) Stebbins was fraudulently joined because he is a non-healthcare prescriber/dispensing nurse and/or because the decedent’s illegal misuse bars recovery.
- The court evaluated federal-question jurisdiction under Grable/Gunn (necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, balance) and assessed fraudulent joinder under Eleventh Circuit precedent (clear and convincing showing no possibility of state law recovery).
- Court concluded Endo failed to carry its burden on both grounds and denied severance as improper to manufacture jurisdiction; case remanded to Clarke County Circuit Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 | Complaint alleges only state-law torts; any FDA/CSA references are factual and not the basis of the claims | Brown’s claims necessarily depend on CSA/FDA duties for design, manufacture and distribution of Opana, raising a substantial federal question | No § 1331 jurisdiction: Endo failed to show the CSA is the sole source of duty or that any federal issue is sufficiently "substantial" under Grable/Gunn |
| Fraudulent joinder of non-diverse defendant Stebbins | Stebbins is properly joined; complaint gives fair notice; § 6-5-551 may not apply | Stebbins was fraudulently joined because he is a non-prescribing nurse and claims fail under Alabama’s heightened pleading or public-policy bars | No fraudulent joinder: Endo did not show by clear and convincing evidence that there is no possibility Brown can state a claim against Stebbins; § 6-5-551 may not apply and common-defense arguments defeat removal |
| Common-defense / illegality defense | N/A — plaintiff argues claims against both defendants remain viable | Decedent’s illegal misuse of Opana bars recovery against in-state defendant | Court applies common-defense doctrine: a defense that would defeat all defendants cannot support fraudulent joinder; remand required |
| Severance to create diversity jurisdiction | N/A — plaintiff opposes severance | If Stebbins is not fraudulent, the court can sever and retain Endo claims in federal court | Denied: court may not retroactively manufacture jurisdiction by severance when complete diversity was lacking at time of removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2013) (burden of establishing removal jurisdiction rests with defendant)
- Connecticut State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2009) (on remand defendant bears burden on motions to remand)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (state claims may give rise to federal jurisdiction when they necessarily raise a substantial federal question)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (U.S. 2013) (four-part test for substantial federal question jurisdiction)
- Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2008) (slim category for substantial federal question; emphasis on character of federal issue)
- Stillwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 663 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2011) (heavy burden to prove fraudulent joinder)
- Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, 154 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) (fraudulent-joinder doctrine explained)
- Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (common-defense and sham-joinder principles)