Judith Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19527
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Teva appeals a district court remand of California propoxyphene actions to state court after removal under CAFA mass action provision.
- There were about two dozen California propoxyphene cases; related MDL actions exist in Kentucky.
- Plaintiffs petitioned for coordination under California Code of Civil Procedure §404, citing pretrial efficiency and avoidance of inconsistent rulings.
- CAFA mass action requires monetary relief claims of 100+ persons proposed to be tried jointly on common questions of law or fact.
- District court remanded, distinguishing Abbott, and held the petition for coordination did not constitute a proposal to try cases jointly.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo; issue is whether petition for coordination constitutes a proposal to try the actions jointly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the coordination petition constitute a proposal to try the cases jointly? | Plaintiffs argued coordination is for pretrial matters, not joint trial. | Teva argued the petition effectively proposed a joint trial by its aims to avoid inconsistent judgments. | No; petition did not amount to a joint-trial proposal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Daubert, 698 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing consolidation through trial from pretrial coordination; relevance to CAFA mass action)
- Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAFA mass action narrow; plaintiffs are masters of their complaint)
- Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2013) (strict interpretation of removal with presumption against remand)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (strict construction of removal statutes; remand favored when uncertain)
- Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) (plaintiffs cannot bind absent class members to keep amount in controversy below threshold)
- Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 701 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2012) (statutory mass action analysis; state actions and consumer plaintiffs)
- Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 637 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2011) (CAFA implementation and removal considerations)
- Seimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 883 (11th Cir. 2013) (coordination vs. joint trial in CAFA context; mass action principles)