72 F.4th 195
7th Cir.2023Background
- These consolidated MDL appeals involve two plaintiffs (Shirley Parton, Kentucky; Teresa Sykes, Texas) whose Cook IVC filters were later found on CT scans to have perforated the IVC wall, but who had no reported symptoms at the time they filed in federal court via the MDL’s direct‑filing short‑form process.
- The MDL used a master complaint (filed on behalf of many plaintiffs) that generally alleged permanent pain, disability, emotional trauma, lost earnings, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000; individual plaintiffs filed short‑form complaints that incorporated the master complaint.
- The MDL court required case‑categorization forms; both plaintiffs initially categorized their cases as asymptomatic (Category 6) and later filed supplemental forms reclassifying them as symptomatic (Category 7) by citing measured perforation distances (Parton 4.2 mm; Sykes 8.01 mm).
- Cook moved for judgment on the pleadings, converted to summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment finding under Kentucky and Texas law that asymptomatic IVC perforation did not show a present physical injury or actual injury sufficient to sustain a tort claim.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit addressed a threshold issue it raised sua sponte: whether federal diversity jurisdiction existed — specifically whether each plaintiff met the >$75,000 amount‑in‑controversy requirement given the actual injuries alleged and supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether each case met federal diversity amount‑in‑controversy (> $75,000) | Master complaint’s general allegations (permanent pain, disability, emotional harm, punitive damages) could be incorporated in good faith to satisfy amount | Amount in controversy must be judged from what each plaintiff actually alleged/experienced; short‑form and records show only asymptomatic perforations so >$75k not plausible | Held: No jurisdiction. It is legally certain neither plaintiff could recover > $75,000 based on injuries as of filing. |
| Whether plaintiffs could rely on master complaint jurisdictional allegations via short‑form | Yes — incorporation is permitted; master complaint alleges damages exceeding $75k | Plaintiffs did not in good faith suffer the injuries described in master complaint, so reliance is improper | Held: Plaintiffs could not, in good faith, rely on master complaint because they had not suffered the alleged symptomatic injuries. |
| Whether plaintiffs could amend short‑form jurisdictional allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1653 after court prompted | Plaintiffs suggested they could not amend because forms were court‑ordered; but they did not move to amend | Cook argued amendment would be improper or irrelevant | Held: Plaintiffs could have sought to amend short‑form pleadings, but they did not; absence of amendment means master allegations control and are contradicted by the record. |
| Whether record evidence (medical records, expert declaration, articles, FDA communication) could reasonably support > $75,000 (including future risks) | Expert and literature show bleeding, clotting, scarring, potential removal difficulty and risks that could justify large damages or future damages | Evidence does not quantify likelihood/severity of present or future harm; no proof of pain or probable future injury as of filing | Held: Evidence, viewed favorably to plaintiffs, did not permit a reasonable jury to award > $75,000. Future harms not shown to be more likely than not; verdicts > $75k would be set aside under governing state law. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (articulates the "legal certainty" test for amount in controversy)
- Carroll v. Stryker Corp., 658 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) (assess amount in controversy as of filing; defendant removing bears heavier evidentiary burden)
- Parker v. Four Seasons Hotels, Ltd., 845 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2017) (amount in controversy judged as of filing date)
- Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006) (proponent of federal jurisdiction must prove contested jurisdictional facts by preponderance)
- Webb v. FINRA, 889 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2018) (court may sua sponte examine amount in controversy; apply state law to damages inquiry)
- Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (post‑filing amendments change the date for amount‑in‑controversy assessment)
- Del Vecchio v. Conseco, Inc., 230 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2000) (remanding where punitive award required to reach jurisdictional floor would be implausible)
- Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Copy Plus, Inc., 939 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 1991) (upholding jurisdiction where record did not make a verdict for the jurisdictional minimum legally impossible)