Johnson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
4:17-cv-02014
E.D. Mo.Aug 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (individuals from 32 states) sued Janssen and related defendants in Missouri state court alleging injuries from Risperdal/Invega and asserting product-liability, negligence, fraud, breach of warranty, and consumer-protection claims.
- One plaintiff (Timothy Wiley) shared Pennsylvania citizenship with defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals, so the original state-court action was not completely diverse.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court more than one year after the state action began, asserting diversity jurisdiction only after seeking dismissal of non-Missouri plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction based on Bristol-Myers.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1); they also sought a stay pending the remand decision.
- Defendants argued (1) the one-year removal bar did not apply because plaintiffs acted in bad faith to prevent removal, and (2) Bristol-Myers (or related court papers) triggered a new 30-day removal period under § 1446(b)(3).
- The Court found no bad-faith conduct by plaintiffs, concluded defendants’ removal was untimely under § 1446(c)(1), granted remand, denied defendants’ jurisdictional motion as premature, and denied other pending motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) (one-year bar) | Removal untimely; plaintiffs did not act in bad faith so § 1446(c)(1) bars removal after one year | Removal timely because Bristol-Myers created grounds for removal; bad-faith exception applies due to forum-shopping | Held: Removal untimely. No bad faith shown; remand required under § 1446(c)(1). |
| Does Bristol-Myers or related court papers trigger a new 30-day removal period under § 1446(b)(3)? | N/A (plaintiffs oppose new removal window) | Bristol-Myers (and related filings) constituted an "order or other paper" enabling a new 30-day removal window | Held: Court did not accept this as a sufficient basis to avoid the one-year bar; removal remained untimely. |
| Personal jurisdiction over non-Missouri plaintiffs (Bristol-Myers rule) | Plaintiffs implicitly oppose dismissal of non-residents as a remedy to create diversity | Defendants sought dismissal of non-Missouri plaintiffs for lack of specific jurisdiction per Bristol-Myers to create complete diversity | Held: Court declined to decide jurisdictional dismissal because remand was required; defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (limits on state-court specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs)
- Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2007) (removal statutes construed narrowly; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Bowler v. Alliedbarton Sec. Servs. LLC, 123 F. Supp. 3d 1152 (E.D. Mo. 2015) (defendant bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction on removal)