Napier v. LivaNova Deutschland GmbH
1:22-cv-00901
| M.D. Penn. | Jun 21, 2022Background
- Michael Napier underwent heart surgery in November 2016; his estate alleges a LivaNova Stockert 3T heater‑cooler used in the surgery caused a fatal Mycobacterium chimaera infection.
- Plaintiff first sued the hospital defendants in Ohio state court (July 2021); that complaint was dismissed as time‑barred under Ohio medical‑claim statutes (Napier I).
- While Napier I was pending, plaintiff filed a new complaint (Oct. 4, 2021) adding LivaNova and asserting statutory product‑liability claims against LivaNova and a negligent‑supplier claim against both LivaNova and the hospitals.
- LivaNova removed the new action to federal court (Nov. 24, 2021), arguing TriHealth and Bethesda Hospital were fraudulently joined; the hospitals moved to dismiss and plaintiff moved to remand.
- The case was transferred into the Sorin 3T Heater‑Cooler MDL; the district court concluded it lacked diversity jurisdiction because LivaNova failed to show fraudulent joinder and remanded the case to Ohio state court.
- The court declined to resolve the hospitals’ 12(b)(6) motion, leaving statutory‑supplier and timeliness issues for the state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal | Napier: removal untimely | LivaNova: removal timely after learning of prior suit | Court did not decide timeliness (remanded on jurisdiction) |
| Fraudulent joinder / diversity | Napier: hospitals are nondiverse suppliers; federal court lacks diversity jurisdiction | LivaNova: hospitals fraudulently joined because the negligent‑supplier claim is really a time‑barred medical claim | Court: LivaNova failed heavy burden; there is a colorable negligent‑supplier claim; remand required |
| Hospital defendants’ motion to dismiss | Napier: negligent‑supplier claim viable | Hospitals: claim is a medical claim/time‑barred or excluded by supplier exception | Court: declined to rule; left dismissal motion to Ohio state court |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2006) (fraudulent joinder standard and requirement to rule out any possibility state court would entertain claim)
- Boyer v. Snap‑on Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1990) (heavy burden on party alleging fraudulent joinder)
- Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26 (3d Cir. 1985) (definition of fraudulent joinder)
- Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848 (3d Cir. 1992) (caution that district court must consider possibility state court would entertain cause)
- Rome v. Flower Mem'l Hosp., 635 N.E.2d 1239 (Ohio 1994) (use of hospital equipment treated as medical claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (distinguishing factual allegations from legal conclusions for plausibility)
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (burden on removing party to establish proper federal jurisdiction)