Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00920/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00920-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

STATE OF ALABAMA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv920-MHT

) (WO) 

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This litigation is before this court, once again on

plaintiff State of Alabama’s motion to remand. The

motion should be granted for a number of reasons,

including the following: (1) 31 U.S.C. § 3732(b) appears

to be a “supplemental” jurisdictional statute and thus

cannot, by itself, be a basis for “removal” jurisdiction,

which must rest on “original” jurisdiction. In other

words, a removing party cannot assert “supplemental”

jurisdiction as a basis for “removal” jurisdiction in one

case based on “original” jurisdiction in an entirely

Case 2:06-cv-00920-MHT-VPM Document 182 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 4
1. Section 3732 provides:

(a) Actions under section 3730.--Any

action under section 3730 may be brought

in any judicial district in which the

defendant or, in the case of multiple

defendants, any one defendant can be

found, resides, transacts business, or

in which any act proscribed by section

3729 occurred. A summons as required by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

shall be issued by the appropriate

district court and served at any place

within or outside the United States.

“(b) Claims under state law.--The

district courts shall have jurisdiction

over any action brought under the laws

of any State for the recovery of funds

paid by a State or local government if

the action arises from the same

transaction or occurrence as an action

brought under section 3730.”

2

different case.1

 See Syngeta Crop Prot., Inc. V. Henson,

537 U.S. 28, 34 (2002); Ahearn v. Charter Township of

Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 451, 456 (6th Cir. 1996); see also

Darden v. Ford Consumer Fin. Co., Inc., 200 F.3d 753,

755 (11th Cir. 2000). (2) Because the Massachusetts qui

tam lawsuit was not generated in the Alabama state-court

proceeding, it is not an “order or other paper,” 28

Case 2:06-cv-00920-MHT-VPM Document 182 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 4
2. In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th

Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the

close of business on September 30, 1981.

3

U.S.C. § 1446(b). See Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental

S.S. Co., 287 F.2d 252, 254 (5th Cir. 1961)2; Morsani v.

Major League Baseball, 79 F.Supp.2d 1331 (N.D. Fla.

1999). (3) Because the Massachusetts qui tam lawsuit was

not a voluntary act of plaintiff State of Alabama, 28

U.S.C. § 1446 removal is not appropriate. See Addo v.

Globe Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 759, 762 (5th Cir.

2000). Finally, although the court does not reach the

issue, it has serious concerns that it can even entertain

a second removal of this case. See Harris v. Blue

Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 951 F.2d 325, 330

(11th Cir. 1992) (“[O]ut of respect for the state court

and in recognition of principles of comity, ... [t]he

action must not ricochet back and forth depending upon

the most recent determination of a federal court.”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff State of

Case 2:06-cv-00920-MHT-VPM Document 182 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 4
Alabama’s motion to remand (doc. no. 128) is granted and

that this lawsuit is, again, remanded to the Circuit

Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, for want of subjectmatter jurisdiction.

It is further ORDERED that the motion to stay (doc.

no. 170) is denied.

It is further ORDERED that all other outstanding

motions (other than pro hac vice motions) are left for

resolution by the state court after remand.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take

appropriate steps to effect the remand.

DONE, this the 2nd day of November, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00920-MHT-VPM Document 182 Filed 11/02/06 Page 4 of 4