Linda Collison v. Johnson and Johnson
2:19-cv-03395
| C.D. Cal. | May 1, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Linda Collison, a California resident, sued Johnson & Johnson and J&J Consumer in California state court alleging talcum powder exposure caused her ovarian cancer.
- Imerys Talc America, the talc supplier, filed Chapter 11 in the District of Delaware after the state action began.
- Defendants removed the state action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), asserting the suit is related to Imerys’ bankruptcy and thus within federal jurisdiction under § 1334.
- Removal was opposed by Plaintiff, who had litigated the matter in state court for about nine months and whose case was part of statewide coordinated proceedings (JCCP 4872) consolidating many similar talc claims.
- The district court considered equitable grounds under § 1452(b) and the familiar factors for bankruptcy-related remand (judicial economy, comity, prejudice to nondebtor parties, potential inconsistent results, predominance of state-law issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1452(a) removal was proper based on relation to Imerys’ bankruptcy | Collyson argued the case should remain in state court; state-law claims predominate and forum is appropriate | J&J argued the case is "related to" Imerys’ Chapter 11, so removal under § 1452 is authorized | Court assumed § 1452 jurisdiction could exist but exercised discretion to remand on equitable grounds |
| Whether equitable factors favor remand under § 1452(b) | Plaintiff emphasized prejudice from out-of-district litigation, long state-court development, and coordinated JCCP proceedings | Defendants relied on bankruptcy-related interests and pending Delaware proceedings | Court found equitable factors (local plaintiff prejudice, ongoing state coordination, comity, judicial economy) favored remand |
| Whether comity and state-law predominance weigh against federal adjudication | Plaintiff stressed exclusively California state-law claims and competency of state courts | Defendants argued bankruptcy ties justify federal handling | Court held comity favored remand because state-law issues predominated |
| Whether remand would disrupt orderly administration of the debtor’s bankruptcy | Plaintiff argued minimal impact on Imerys’ bankruptcy and that coordination avoids inconsistent rulings | Defendants argued removal would assist centralized resolution in Delaware | Court held remand would not impair bankruptcy administration and that avoiding disruption to coordinated state proceedings supported remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal; defendant bears burden of proving jurisdiction)
- Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1986) (removal burden rests with defendant)
- McCarthy v. Prince, 230 B.R. 414 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999) (§ 1452(b) grants broad equitable remand authority)