Martin v. Bayer Corporation
3:11-cv-12606
| S.D. Ill. | Jun 12, 2012Background
- Plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit in Illinois arising from YAZ use by Sophia Claire Martin, who had AVM.
- Case is part of In re Yasmin and YAZ MDL; plaintiff seeks counts for negligence and wrongful death against Moody’s Pharmacy and two pharmacists.
- Defendants removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, arguing complete diversity and fraudulent joinder of non-diverse defendants.
- Court notes the complaint does not allege specific knowledge of AVM by Moody’s or the pharmacists, only a general claim they should have known the risks.
- The court ultimately grants dismissal of the non-diverse defendants, finds complete diversity thereafter, and denies remand.
- Damages allegations exceed $75,000, and the court concludes subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined | Walton shows lack of viable claim defeats remand | Non-diverse defendants have no duty under Illinois law; fraudulent joinder prevents remand | Fraudulent joinder not established; court dismisses non-diverse defendants and proceeds |
| Whether Illinois duty to warn applies to pharmacists under learned intermediary doctrine | Pharmacists had special knowledge and duty to warn given AVM | Under learned intermediary, warning rests with physicians unless pharmacist has knowledge of susceptibility | Duty not shown; learned intermediary doctrine applies and bars claim against non-diverse defendants |
| Whether plaintiff alleged specific knowledge of AVM to trigger duty | Complaint and affidavits show AVM and warnings were relevant to drug risk | Plaintiff fails to plead or show that pharmacist knew of AVM or patient susceptibility | No specific knowledge alleged; dismissal of non-diverse defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2011) (fraudulent joinder if no plausible claim against in-state defendant)
- Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 766 N.E.2d 1118 (Ill. 2002) (learned intermediary doctrine relevance to warnings)
- Petrillo v. Syntex Labs, Inc., 499 N.E.2d 952 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (Petrillo doctrine regarding communication during removal proceedings)
- Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69 (7th Cir. 1992) (fraudulent joinder standard and burden on removing party)
- Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2009) (scope of fraudulent joinder; must show reasonable possibility of recovery)
- Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 435 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2006) (amount in controversy sufficiency standard for removal)
- Carroll v. Stryker Corp., 658 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) (determinants for original jurisdiction and removal)