Margalit Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
771 F.3d 1218
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Dozens of California actions alleging injuries from propoxyphene products (Darvocet/Darvon and generics) were filed; more than 100 plaintiffs exist across separately filed suits.
- Plaintiffs filed petitions under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 404 seeking coordination of California propoxyphene cases “for all purposes,” citing risks like duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings, and conflicting liability determinations.
- Defendants (Teva and Xanodyne) removed several of those state-court actions to federal court under CAFA’s “mass action” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i).
- The central statutory question was whether the § 404 petition constituted a plaintiffs’ proposal that the claims of 100+ persons “be tried jointly,” which is the CAFA trigger for federal jurisdiction over mass actions.
- The district court remanded; the Ninth Circuit en banc reversed, holding the § 404 petitions amounted to proposals for joint trial because they requested coordination “for all purposes” and sought remedies (consistency of liability, avoidance of conflicting judgments) that implied trial-level consolidation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petition under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 404 seeking coordination “for all purposes” is a plaintiffs’ proposal that the claims of 100+ persons "be tried jointly" under CAFA | The § 404 petitions focused on pretrial discovery and efficiency; they did not expressly request a joint trial and thus do not meet CAFA’s “proposed to be tried jointly” requirement | The § 404 petitions voluntarily requested coordination “for all purposes” and sought relief (avoidance of inconsistent liability rulings, unified adjudication) that necessarily implies a proposal for joint trial, triggering CAFA removal | The Ninth Circuit (en banc) held the petitions were proposals to try the cases jointly and reversed the remands; coordination “for all purposes” (with arguments about inconsistent judgments/liability) qualifies as a proposal for joint trial under CAFA |
Key Cases Cited
- Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAFA mass-action provision is narrow; plaintiffs are masters of their complaints but their filings can propose joint trial)
- In re Abbott Laboratories, 698 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2012) (petition for consolidation "through trial" can implicitly propose joint trial for CAFA purposes)
- Atwell v. Boston Scientific Corp., 740 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 2013) (assignment to single judge "for discovery and trial" construed as proposal for joint trial under CAFA)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) (plaintiffs remain masters of their complaints; court cautions against formalistic attempts to avoid CAFA jurisdiction)