Teague v. Johnson & Johnson
749 F.3d 879
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- 702 plaintiffs (women implanted with transvaginal mesh and their spouses) filed 12 nearly identical product‑liability actions in Oklahoma state court; each individual complaint named fewer than 100 plaintiffs but, in the aggregate, exceeded 100.
- Each complaint included an express statement that plaintiffs’ claims were joined only for pretrial discovery and proceedings and disclaimed joinder for trial; all cases were assigned to the same state‑court judge.
- Defendants (New Jersey corporate residents) removed to federal court relying on CAFA’s “mass action” removal provision and alternatively asserted traditional diversity jurisdiction by claiming fraudulent misjoinder of New Jersey plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand 11 actions (650 plaintiffs); the district court granted remand, finding no proposal for a joint trial under CAFA and rejecting defendants’ procedural‑misjoinder theory.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the remand under CAFA and declined to exercise discretionary appellate review of the diversity/fraudulent‑misjoinder question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs "proposed" a joint trial such that the suits qualify as a CAFA "mass action" (28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(11)(B)(i)) | Plaintiffs intentionally filed separate complaints and expressly disclaimed trial joinder; filing separate suits and coordinating pretrial matters does not equal a proposal to try jointly | Filing multiple, virtually identical suits before one judge and coordinating litigation intrinsically proposes a joint trial (implicit proposal); treating form over substance would defeat CAFA | No. Filing separate complaints and coordinating pretrial proceedings, with express disclaimers of trial joinder, did not constitute a proposal for a joint trial; remand affirmed under CAFA. |
| Whether plaintiffs’ coordination/assignment to one judge falls within CAFA’s pretrial consolidation exclusion (§1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV)) | Plaintiffs: coordination solely for pretrial purposes fits the statutory exclusion | Defendants: common forum and coordinated litigation are functionally equivalent to proposing a joint trial | Court: The exclusion supports remand; coordination for pretrial proceedings does not automatically create a removable mass action. |
| Whether courts may infer an implicit proposal for joint trial from plaintiffs’ litigation conduct | Plaintiffs: proposal must be intentional and demonstrable; implicit inference from mere filing is improper | Defendants: implicit proposals are recognized; joint trial can be implied by litigation structure | Court: Implicit proposals are possible in some contexts, but not established here — mere separate filings in one court with express disclaimers do not suffice. |
| Whether the court should address defendants’ alternative argument of fraudulent misjoinder to establish diversity jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: not addressed here; remand proper under CAFA | Defendants: New Jersey plaintiffs were fraudulently misjoined and should be disregarded for diversity | Court: Declined to exercise discretionary appellate jurisdiction over the fraudulent‑misjoinder/dominance diversity issue; remand stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frederick v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard of review: de novo review of district court’s removal ruling)
- Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009) (separate suits each under 100 plaintiffs may avoid CAFA unless a joint trial is proposed)
- In re Abbott Labs., Inc., 698 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2012) (a motion to consolidate "through trial" can constitute an implicit proposal for joint trial)
- Atwell v. Boston Sci. Corp., 740 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 2013) (assignment/coordination that makes joint trials the "inevitable result" supports CAFA removal)
- Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2013) (filing separate suits without proposing consolidation does not create CAFA mass action)
- Visendi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2013) (initial complaint proposing joint trial supported CAFA removal)
- Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (2014) (CAFA’s reference to "100 or more persons" focuses on named plaintiffs actually proposing to join; courts should not engage in broad background inquiries to treat separate actions as a mass action)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) (caution against treating nonbinding stipulations as binding when assessing CAFA issues)