Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05623/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05623-1/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

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

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 02/09/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SERGIO L. CARREON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ALZA CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-5623 RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REMAND 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This case presents the difficult question of assigning responsibility for the tragic death of 

plaintiff’s wife, who allegedly suffered an overdose of the drug Fentanyl from transdermal patches 

she was wearing by prescription. Plaintiff, a Texas resident, contends the overdose resulted from a 

defect in Fentanyl patches designed, manufactured, and marketed by defendants Sandoz, Inc, a 

Colorado corporation, and Alza Corporation, a California corporation. 

The present motion, however, presents only the more mundane question of whether this 

matter should be litigated in this Court or in the state court forum plaintiff originally selected. There 

should be no argument that the case could have been filed here in the first instance, as complete 

diversity exists between the parties, and the amount in controversy is sufficient to support 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff contends, however, that defendants had no right to remove the action based on 

diversity, because defendant Alza is a California resident. 

Case 5:09-cv-05623-RS Document 14 Filed 02/09/10 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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

The plain language of the removal statute permits removal where no defendant who has been 

“properly joined and served” is a resident of the forum. 28 U.S.C. §1441(b) (emphasis added). 

Because it is undisputed that Alza had not yet been served when this action was removed, and 

because plaintiff has not presented sufficient authority or grounds for disregarding the statutory 

language, the motion to remand will be denied. The matter has been submitted without oral 

argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

II. BACKGROUND 

As noted above, plaintiff is a Texas resident, who alleges that his wife died as the result of a 

defect in Fentanyl patches produced by defendants. Plaintiff asserts that the patches have been the 

subject of prior recalls and an FDA investigation into defendants’ manufacturing process and quality 

control procedures. Plaintiff contends the patches are subject to leaking excessive doses of 

Fentanyl, which can be fatal. 

Plaintiff filed suit in Santa Clara Superior Court on September 14, 2009. Approximately 

three weeks later, plaintiff provided copies of the complaint to defendants’ counsel, requesting 

counsel to accept service. Defense counsel declined to do so. Approximately seven weeks later, 

plaintiff had still not effected service on either defendant. At that point, on November 30, 2009, 

defendant Sandoz appeared in the action and filed its notice of removal. 

III. DISCUSSION 

The sole controversy presented by this motion is whether this Court should follow other 

decisions in this district in applying the language of Section 1441(b) literally, or follow the lead of 

certain courts outside this district that have chosen to disregard the statutory language in the interest 

of discouraging “gamesmanship” by defendants. Plaintiff acknowledges that removal was proper 

here if the words of the statute are taken at face value.1

 Courts in this district have routinely applied 

 

1

 Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that “diversity jurisdiction” is lacking in this case. Plaintiff appears to 

mean only that defendants have, in plaintiff’s view, circumvented the intent of section 1441(b) to 

preclude removal on the basis of diversity where at least one non-sham defendant is a forum 

resident. Plaintiff does not dispute that there is complete diversity of citizenship between him, on 

the one hand, and the defendants, on the other hand. Technically, the Court will not be exercising 

Case 5:09-cv-05623-RS Document 14 Filed 02/09/10 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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

the statute as it is written. See, e.g., City of Ann Arbor Employee’s Retirement Sys. v. Gecht, 2007 

WL 760568 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Chen, J.); Waldon v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2007 WL 1747128 

(N.D. Cal. 2007) (Jenkins, J.); Perez v. McNamee, 2006 WL 3462791 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (Wilken, J.); 

Republic Western Insurance Co. v. International Insurance Co., 765 F.Supp. 628 (N.D.Cal.1991) 

(Ware, J.). 

Plaintiff contends that these cases have been rejected in other districts within California and 

elsewhere. For example, plaintiff cites Sullivan v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 575 F.Supp.2d 

640 (D.N.J. 2008), where the court took issue with the Gecht decision’s observation that Congress 

could have written the statute differently had it wanted to avoid situations like that presented here. 

Calling that “untrue,” the Sullivan court asserted that “Congress could not possibly have anticipated 

the tremendous loophole that would one day manifest from technology enabling forum defendants 

to circumvent the forum defendant rule by, inter alia, electronically monitoring state court dockets.” 

575 F.Supp. 645. While it may be true that Congress could not have foreseen that certain 

technological changes might foster new forms of potential “gamesmanship,” nothing precludes 

Congress from amending the statute if a significant problem has now actually arisen; indeed, that is 

the essence of the legislative function. 

Furthermore, despite plaintiff’s cries of gamesmanship and his contention that a literal 

reading of the statute produces “absurd results,” nothing in the facts of this case rises to the level of 

“rare and exceptional circumstances” that would justify a departure from the plain language of the 

statute. See Gecht, 2007 WL 760568, at *8 (citing Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U.S. 184, 190, 

(1991)). Defendants here did not, for example, rush to remove the action before plaintiff had any 

opportunity to serve them, thereby engaging in “gamesmanship.” Rather, plaintiff could have 

avoided this outcome by effecting service on Alza at any time during the approximately two and 

one-half months between the time the case was filed and when it was removed. 

 

 

“diversity jurisdiction” in this case, because it was not initiated here. Rather, the Court has removal 

jurisdiction, based on the diversity of the parties, pursuant to section 1441. 

Case 5:09-cv-05623-RS Document 14 Filed 02/09/10 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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 The motion to remand this action to Santa Clara Superior Court is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/09/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:09-cv-05623-RS Document 14 Filed 02/09/10 Page 4 of 4