Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02771/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02771-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JULIEANNE FAMA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, 

MERCK & CO., INC., and WATSON 

PHARMACEUTICALS, 

 Defendants. /

No. Civ. S-06-2771 DFL KJM 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

Plaintiff Julieanne Fama filed suit against defendants 

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., and Watson 

Pharmaceuticals in El Dorado County Superior Court alleging that 

a drug produced under various names by defendants caused her 

miscarriage. On December 5, 2006, AstraZeneca removed the case 

based upon diversity of citizenship. On December 11, Merck 

filed a motion to dismiss Fama’s design defect claim, one of 

multiple liability theories alleged in her complaint. On 

January 4, 2007, Fama filed a motion to remand. The court 

Case 2:06-cv-02771-DFL -KJM Document 27 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 4
2 

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

GRANTS the motion to remand and, therefore, does not reach the 

motion to dismiss. 

I. 

AstraZeneca, Merck, and Watson produce a form of the 

generic drug Lisinopril, an ACE inhibitor used for controlling 

blood pressure, treating heart failure, and preventing kidney 

damage in patients with hypertension or diabetes. Fama began 

using Lisinopril after she was diagnosed with hypertension. In 

August 2004, Fama learned that she was pregnant and informed her 

physician. Although Fama questioned her physician about whether 

she should continue taking the drug, the physician did not alter 

her treatment. In November 2004, Fama discovered during a 

routine sonogram that the fetus had died in vitro. Fama alleges 

that the death resulted from her use of Lisinopril. 

Fama seeks recovery based upon theories of negligence, 

strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, fraud, 

and negligent misrepresentation. Defendant AstraZeneca removed 

the action, with Merck’s consent, and argued that Watson is a 

fraudulently joined defendant. Fama is a citizen of California. 

AstraZeneca is a limited partnership, the partners of which are 

citizens of Sweden, Delaware, and New York. Merck is a New 

Jersey corporation with its principle place of business in New 

Jersey. Watson is a Nevada corporation with its principle place 

of business in California. 

Case 2:06-cv-02771-DFL -KJM Document 27 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 4
3 

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

II. 

A. Motion to Remand 

AstraZeneca removed the action, with Merck’s consent, on 

the basis of diversity jurisdiction. AstraZeneca initially 

argued that Watson is a “sham defendant” because Fama failed to 

allege that she purchased, ingested, or was injured by Watsonproduced Lisinopril. Fama, however, filed an affidavit with her 

motion to remand stating that she orally ingested Lisinopril 

manufactured and distributed by Watson.1 In addition, she stated 

that she could not rule out the possibility that she also took 

versions of the drug manufactured by AstraZeneca and Merck until 

she gained access to her pharmacy records. Based upon the 

affidavit, AstraZeneca agrees that there is a possibility that 

Fama can state a claim for relief against Watson. Since Watson 

is a citizen of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), 

complete diversity is destroyed and remand is appropriate. 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). AstraZeneca no longer opposes Fama’s motion 

to remand. The motion is GRANTED. 

/ 

 

1 Fama amended her affidavit at AstraZeneca’s request. The 

original affidavit did not state that she had taken Lisinopril 

produced by Watson, but included photocopies of her prescription 

bottle for Lisinopril that clearly displayed Watson as the 

manufacturer. Although AstraZeneca claims the original 

affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate that Watson was a 

legitimately joined defendant, the court does not reach the 

issue following Fama’s submission of an amended affidavit. 

Case 2:06-cv-02771-DFL -KJM Document 27 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 4
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

B. Motion to Dismiss 

Merck seeks to dismiss Fama’s strict liability design 

defect claim. Since the court lacks jurisdiction over the 

action due to the absence of complete diversity, it does not 

reach the motion. 

III. 

The court GRANTS the motion to remand and does not reach 

the motion to dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 9, 2007 

 /s/ David F. Levi___________

 DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-02771-DFL -KJM Document 27 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 4