140 F. Supp. 3d 66
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Vicky Smith sued Dr. Frederick Hendricks, Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. (the Healthcare Provider Defendants), and Boston Scientific in D.C. Superior Court after receiving a Boston Scientific Advantage transvaginal mid-urethral sling and suffering complications.
- Smith pleaded medical-malpractice and lack-of-informed-consent claims against the Healthcare Provider Defendants and multiple products-liability and related claims against Boston Scientific; she sought punitive damages as well.
- Boston Scientific removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction; Healthcare Provider Defendants are D.C. citizens (same as plaintiff), Boston Scientific is not.
- Defendants argued the Healthcare Provider Defendants’ citizenship should be disregarded because they were either fraudulently or improperly joined; Healthcare Provider Defendants also moved to sever and to dismiss (arguing, inter alia, failure to satisfy D.C.’s 90‑day pre‑suit notice).
- The Court held the Healthcare Provider Defendants were not fraudulently joined but were improperly joined under Rule 20; it severed and remanded the claims against them to D.C. Superior Court, preserved jurisdiction over Boston Scientific, held the Healthcare Provider Defendants’ motion to dismiss in abeyance, and stayed the remaining federal action pending MDL transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of diversity jurisdiction | No complete diversity because Healthcare Provider Defs are D.C. citizens; remand required | Disregard Healthcare Provider Defs’ citizenship because they were fraudulently or improperly joined, creating diversity | Not fraudulently joined; but improperly joined — court severed them and retained diversity jurisdiction over Boston Scientific |
| Fraudulent joinder | Joinder was proper; removal invalid | Defendants contended fraudulent joinder or lack of possible recovery against Healthcare Provider Defs | No fraudulent joinder: plaintiff could possibly prevail (e.g., notice waiver issue) |
| Misjoinder / Rule 20 and Rule 21 severance | Claims arise from same occurrence (implant); joinder proper | Claims arise from different transactions (medical care v. product design/marketing); sever under Rule 21 | Claims do not arise from the same transaction; misjoinder found; sever and remand Healthcare Provider Defs under Rule 21 |
| Compliance with removal statute (forum‑defendant rule and consent) | Removal defective: forum‑defendant rule and consent missing (Healthcare Provider Defs didn't consent) | Those statutes apply only to properly joined and served defendants; misjoinder makes rules inapplicable | Removal proper because improperly joined defendants are disregarded for these removal requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (establishes limited nature of federal jurisdiction)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (complete diversity requirement when multiple defendants sued)
- In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 631 F.3d 537 (Rule 21 severance and dropping nondiverse dispensable parties to preserve jurisdiction)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (Rule 21 authority to drop dispensable nondiverse parties)
- Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457 (fraudulent-joinder doctrine articulated)