Teamsters Local 404 Health Servs. & Ins. Plan v. King Pharm., Inc., 906 F.3d 260

Teamsters Local 404 Health Services & Insurance Plan filed a CPLR § 3102(c) petition in New York Supreme Court seeking pre-action disclosure of settlement and licensing agreements resolving patent litigation over the EpiPen (alleged "pay-for-delay" arrangements with Teva) to investigate potential antitrust and consumer-protection claims.
Respondents (King, Meridian, Pfizer) removed the petition to federal district court, arguing federal jurisdiction and moving to dismiss on grounds that comparable federal pre-action discovery is unavailable under the Federal Rules.
The district court remanded the matter to state court, concluding it lacked federal-question jurisdiction and that diversity removal was improper under § 1441(b)'s forum-defendant rule.
The Second Circuit accepted appeal of the remand order and reviewed de novo whether the CPLR § 3102(c) petition is a removable "civil action" under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.
The court analyzed statutory text, the timing/function of § 3102(c) (pre-action discovery before any action is commenced), and precedent interpreting § 1441/§ 1446, finding § 3102(c) is a procedural device, not a substantive cause of action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a CPLR § 3102(c) pre-action disclosure petition is a "civil action" removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441	§3102(c) petitions seek discovery to frame a future complaint and thus implicate federal or diversity jurisdiction, so removal is proper	§3102(c) is a pre-action special proceeding brought before any complaint; §1441 authorizes removal only of a "civil action," so §3102(c) petitions are not removable	A §3102(c) petition is not a removable "civil action" under §1441; remand affirmed
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)'s reference to "proceeding" expands removability beyond §1441	The reference to "proceeding" in §1446(b) broadens removability to include petitions like §3102(c)	§1446 is procedural and cannot expand the substantive scope of removability defined by §1441; stray uses of "proceeding" do not alter §1441's reach	§1446 does not expand the class of removable matters beyond what §1441 permits
Whether permitting removal would conflict with state pre-action discovery policy or Federal Rule 27	Petitioner needs state forum to obtain information to decide whether and how to sue; federal rules do not provide a parallel remedy	Defendants argued federal jurisdiction should be available if federal or diversity claims are implicated	Court found removal would undermine New York's policy and likely cause dismissal in federal court; resolved doubts against removability

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hurlbut, 585 F.3d 639 (2d Cir. 2009) (appellate standard permitting affirmation on any ground in the record)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (removability requires case could have been brought in federal court originally)
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 488 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2007) (removal statute construed narrowly; doubts resolved against removability)
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S. 2002) (strict construction of removal statutes)
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1941) (principle that removal procedures are to be strictly construed)
Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard of review for remand decisions)