Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00471/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00471-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441pi Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

3:16-cv-00471-BEN-JLB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELISABETH JACOBY; GLENN 

JACOBY; REBECCA JANE JACKSON; 

RUBY WAGONER; ELRA GUERIN; 

DEBORAH TRABER; NORA 

ROMERO; DARL BARBALACCI,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PFIZER INC.; GREENSTONE LLC; 

McKESSON CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00471-BEN-JLB

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING 

ON EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL 

JURISDICTION AND PROPER 

VENUE

Plaintiffs filed this action in state court. Defendants Pfizer Inc. and Greenstone 

LLC removed the case to this Court, asserting (1) diversity jurisdiction and (2) federal 

jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act’s (“CAFA”) “mass action” provision. 

The parties never litigated in this Court whether removal was proper because, upon 

removal, the case was transferred to a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding in the 

District of South Carolina (the “MDL court”). 

Almost a year after removal, in February 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation remanded the case because the MDL court lacked jurisdiction. 

The MDL court found that diversity jurisdiction did not exist “and that the only possible 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-BEN-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:16-cv-00471-BEN-JLB

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

basis for federal jurisdiction is CAFA.” (Docket No. 10). Because CAFA precludes 

MDL consideration of a case removed to federal court under CAFA’s “mass action” 

provision, like this one, the MDL court remanded the action.

In the briefs filed in the MDL court, Plaintiffs contended that CAFA jurisdiction 

does not exist. They sought to add this case to an existing coordinated proceeding in 

California state court. Pfizer argued that federal jurisdiction exists. The MDL court did 

not determine whether CAFA jurisdiction exists to maintain this action in federal court. 

Therefore, whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider this action is an open question.

Accordingly, the Court requests briefing to determine whether it has federal 

jurisdiction under CAFA. Removing defendants must file an opening brief addressing 

whether federal jurisdiction exists and whether venue is proper in this Court. See Abrego 

Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “under 

CAFA the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction remains, as before, on the

proponent of federal jurisdiction”). The brief must be filed by March 17, 2017. Plaintiffs 

must file a response by March 31, 2017. Removing defendants may file a reply by April 

7, 2017. Defendant McKesson Corporation, which did not join in the removal, must file 

a statement of its position by April 7, 2017. The Court will then take the matter under 

submission without oral argument. After review of the fully briefed matter, the parties 

will be notified of an oral argument hearing date, if any. The parties’ briefs must comply 

with the requirements for Civil Local Rule 7.1.

If the parties agree that this action should be remanded to state court, they may file 

a joint stipulation at any time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00471-BEN-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2