Melissa Ramirez v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5397

113 plaintiffs from 28 states filed a single products‑liability complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging harm from a packaging error in Qualitest birth control; complaint joined all claims and contained sections titled “Facts Common to All Counts.”
Complaint repeatedly used singular trial language (e.g., "request a jury trial," "an award of damages to be determined at trial," and "a judgment may be entered") and grouped damages by state.
One week after filing, plaintiffs moved for admission to the Court of Common Pleas’ Mass Tort Program (motion captioned "JURY TRIAL DEMANDED").
Defendants removed under CAFA § 1332(d)(11) as a "mass action" (≥100 plaintiffs proposing to try claims jointly); plaintiffs moved to remand arguing they only sought pretrial coordination/case management, not a joint trial.
The district court remanded, concluding plaintiffs did not propose a joint trial; the Third Circuit granted interlocutory review and reversed, holding defendants met their burden to show a proposal for joint trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs "proposed to try" 100+ claims jointly under CAFA § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i)	Plaintiffs’ complaint said claims were filed together "for purposes of case management on a mass tort basis," and admission to the Mass Tort Program prevents a joint trial — so they did not propose a joint trial	Single complaint joining 113 claims with singular trial requests and common‑facts framing implicitly (and explicitly in language) proposes a joint trial; defendants satisfied removal burden	Reversed remand: plaintiffs’ filings and structure implied a proposal for a joint trial; ambiguous "case management" language was not an explicit unambiguous disclaimer sufficient to prevent CAFA jurisdiction

Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (plenary review applies to subject matter jurisdiction questions)
Atwell v. Boston Sci. Corp., 740 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 2013) (a proposal for joint trial may be implicit)
In re Abbott Labs., Inc., 698 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2012) (one complaint implicitly proposes one trial; bellwether/limited liability trials can constitute joint trials)
Koral v. Boeing Co., 628 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2011) (where a single complaint joins many plaintiffs, the assumption is one trial)
Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2013) (naming 100+ plaintiffs in one complaint can propose a joint trial; plaintiffs can avoid CAFA by separate complaints)
Corber v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., 771 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (expressly limiting coordination to pretrial matters can avoid CAFA mass‑action jurisdiction)
Parson v. Johnson & Johnson, 749 F.3d 879 (10th Cir. 2014) (clear disclaimer that joinder is for pretrial only defeats a finding of a proposal for joint trial)
Morgan v. Gay, 471 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2006) (burden of proof on party seeking removal)
Briggs v. Merck Sharpe & Dohme, 796 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2015) (court must consider whether the forum can grant a joint trial; bellwether trials may but do not always constitute joint trials)
Bullard v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 535 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2008) (state joinder rules inform whether plaintiffs intended joint trials)