Julie Williams v. Pfizer Inc., 2:15-cv-01626

Background

Hundreds of California plaintiffs filed individual state-court actions alleging Lipitor caused Type II diabetes; plaintiffs sought coordination in a JCCP (Joint Council Coordinated Proceeding) under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 404.1.
An amended coordination petition (21 plaintiffs) requested coordination “for all purposes” and indicated plaintiffs would seek to add additional cases via add-on petitions.
The Judicial Council created a JCCP but initially included only 3 cases; subsequent add-on petitions and orders brought the number of plaintiffs who affirmatively sought coordination to 65 (9 actually added; 53 pending; 3 named but not filed).
Pfizer removed many cases to federal court invoking CAFA mass-action jurisdiction (claims of 100+ persons proposed to be tried jointly); cases went to MDL and were later transferred/remanded to this district for jurisdictional resolution.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing fewer than 100 plaintiffs proposed a joint trial; the Court examined whether a “proposal” for joint trial had been made and, if so, whether it covered 100+ plaintiffs.
The Court held the coordination petition and supporting materials did propose joint trials for plaintiffs who filed or joined the petition, but only 65 plaintiffs had voluntarily and affirmatively proposed joint trials — below CAFA’s 100-person threshold — so remand was required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the JCCP coordination petition constituted a proposal to try cases jointly	The petition sought coordination primarily for pretrial discovery; it did not validly propose joint trials for CAFA	The petition’s “for all purposes” language and statements about avoiding inconsistent judgments proposed joint trials	Court: The amended petition and supporting documents did propose joint trials for the plaintiffs who filed or joined the petition (following Corber)
Whether 100 or more plaintiffs proposed their claims be tried jointly (CAFA threshold)	Only 65 plaintiffs voluntarily and affirmatively sought coordination/add-on — fewer than 100, so CAFA does not apply	JCCP counsel’s public statements, lists, and administrative filings show intent to add thousands and thus satisfy the 100-plaintiff proposal requirement	Court: Only the 65 plaintiffs who filed the petition/add-on petitions made voluntary, affirmative proposals; CAFA’s 100-person requirement not met; remand granted
Whether actions by JCCP counsel or administrative case labels bind other plaintiffs	Counsel’s statements or case-management filings do not bind non-party plaintiffs; the clients’ affirmative acts control	Pfizer: Counsel’s representations, list of cases, and complex-case designations show an implicit proposal covering 100+ plaintiffs	Court: Identity and actions of plaintiffs (not counsel or clerical labels) matter; counsel’s statements/administrative labels insufficient to create proposals for other plaintiffs
Whether the state judge’s assignment/order constituted a proposal for joint trial covering 100+ plaintiffs	Plaintiffs: Judge’s order merely assigned cases for coordination subject to add-on procedures; add-ons required before binding	Pfizer: Judge Johnson’s order could be construed as sua sponte joinder that supports mass-action removal	Court: Judge’s order expressly required add-on procedures and did not itself propose a 100+ joint trial; it did not satisfy CAFA’s proposal requirement

Key Cases Cited

Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes mass-action proposal from class actions and discusses CAFA mass-action scope)
Corber v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., 771 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (coordination petition stating coordination "for all purposes" can constitute a proposal for joint trial)
Briggs v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, 796 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2015) (a proposal must be a voluntary, affirmative, intentional act; proposal cannot come from defendant)
Romo v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2013) (examined coordination petitions’ focus on pretrial matters; later rehearing en banc vacated this panel decision)