Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00486/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00486-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

HELEN ARONIS,

NO. CIV. S-05-0486 WBS DAD

Plaintiff, 

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RE: MOTION TO REMAND AND 

MOTION TO STAY

MERCK & CO., INC., a New

Jersey Corporation; McKESSON

CORP., a California

Corporation; and DOES 1-100,

inclusive

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff brought this action in Sacramento County

Superior Court for damages related to her heart attack allegedly

caused by the drug Vioxx. Defendant Merck removed the case to

this court. Defendant McKesson did not participate in the

removal. Plaintiff now seeks a remand to state court and

attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this motion. Merck

opposes the motion to remand and moves the court to stay this

case pending transfer to the Eastern District of Louisiana

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

Defendant Merck, a citizen of New Jersey, in its notice

of removal alleged that this court has jurisdiction over the

Case 2:05-cv-00486-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

matter on the basis of diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Merck

alleged that the amount in controversy was greater than the

requirement of $75,000 and that there existed complete diversity

between the parties. Merck contends that McKesson, which

plaintiff alleges is a resident of California, has been

fraudulently joined as a defendant and therefore the presence of

McKesson should not destroy diversity. Plaintiff objects to this

characterization of McKesson as fraudulently joined and seeks a

remand to state court.

For a federal court to have jurisdiction based on

diversity, complete diversity between the parties must normally

exist. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067

(9th Cir. 2001). Complete diversity only exists when no

defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff. 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Defendant

McKesson, which has not yet filed any papers in this matter, is,

like plaintiff, a citizen of California. Therefore, complete

diversity does not exist on the face of the complaint. However,

an exception to the requirement of complete diversity exists

where a non-diverse defendant has been fraudulently joined. 

Morris, 236 F.3d at 1067. “Fraudulent joinder” is a term of art. 

“[I]f the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a

resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the

settled rules of the state,” then the defendant’s joinder is

deemed fraudulent and is ignored for purposes of the diversity

requirements. Id.(citation omitted).

The complaint does not state a cause of action against

McKesson, and that failure is obvious. All plaintiff alleges is

Case 2:05-cv-00486-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

that “Vioxx is manufactured and distributed by the defendants.” 

(Compl.). Plaintiff makes no allegation that McKesson ever

handled the specific pills that were allegedly the cause of her

injuries. Defendant concedes that McKesson distributes Vioxx,

but hastens to add that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of

such distributors. Plaintiff does not dispute this contention,

but counters that McKesson is a major distributor of the drug. 

The allegation that McKesson is a major distributor of

Vioxx, even though taken as true at this stage, is not enough to

support a claim against McKesson. To state a claim against a

defendant, a plaintiff must allege a causal connection between

the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Here, plaintiff

does not allege that McKesson contributed in any way to her

injuries, only that McKesson is a distributor. Therefore, the

complaint states no claim upon which relief can be granted

against McKesson, and McKesson has therefore been fraudulently

joined.

This case will soon be officially transferred to the

Eastern District of Louisiana. A stay therefore is not

necessary, and the court does not grant that motion. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) plaintiff’s motion to remand be, and the same

hereby is, DENIED;

(2) plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs

be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00486-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

(3) defendant’s motion to stay be, and the same hereby

is, DENIED.

DATED: May 3, 2005

Case 2:05-cv-00486-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 05/03/05 Page 4 of 4