Felkel v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc
3:12-cv-01931
| D.S.C. | Aug 15, 2012Background
- Felkel filed a state-law complaint in Richland County alleging strict liability, negligence, and warranties against DePuy and Macari entities.
- DePuy removed the case to federal court, asserting Macari Defendants were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity.
- A conditional transfer order to MDL No. 2197 was filed, but not yet effective; the court retains jurisdiction to rule on pending motions.
- The MDL involves DePuy ASR Hip System recalls; other related actions have been consolidated before Judge Katz.
- DePuy seeks a stay pending transfer; Felkel seeks remand; the court also considers preemption and potential lack of complete diversity.
- The court ultimately stays the case pending MDL transfer and declines to rule on remand at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Macari Defendants are fraudulently joined. | Felkel argues Macari is not fraudulently joined and may have viable state-law claims. | DePuy contends Macari Defendants are fraudulently joined due to preemption and lack of viable claims. | Court does not decide remand; stay granted pending MDL transfer. |
| Whether preemption defeats state-law claims against Macari. | Felkel asserts state-law claims are broader than a simple failure to warn and not preempted. | DePuy contends FDA misbranding prohibitions preempt state-law duties and bar claims against Macari. | Issue reserved; court stays proceedings and leaves ruling to Judge Katz. |
| Whether the case should be stayed pending MDL transfer. | Felkel argues a stay would prejudice her by delaying remand issues and costs. | DePuy argues a stay promotes efficient, uniform handling of pretrial issues across MDL. | Court grants stay pending transfer to MDL No. 2197. |
| Effect of remand motion while MDL transfer is pending. | Felkel seeks remand now; argues issues are not MDL-specific. | DePuy asserts remand should await MDL transfer due to centralized pretrial proceedings. | Remand motion is deferred; court declines to rule while staying the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 1999) (fraudulent joinder standard; heavy burden on movant)
- AIDS Counseling & Testing Centers v. Group W Television, Inc., 903 F.2d 1000 (4th Cir. 1990) (may consider entire record to determine basis of joinder)
- Sonoco Prods. Co. v. Physicians Health Plan, Inc., 338 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2003) (burden on plaintiff to show federal jurisdiction exists)
- Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1994) (removal jurisdiction and joinder standards; v. broad discretion)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (S. Ct. 1936) (stay power of courts to manage docket efficiently)