Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03450/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03450-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

OMJPI states in its notice of removal that it was formerly 1

known as Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. and that it was erroneously sued as

Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACOB MORRIS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:09-cv-03450-GEB-GGH

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

) REMAND*

ALZA CORPORATION; JANSSEN )

PHARMACEUTICA PRODUCTS, L.P.; )

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC.; )

ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN )

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and JOHN )

DOES 1-100, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves to remand this case to the Solano County

Superior Court in California from which Defendant Ortho-McNeil-Janssen

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“OMJPI”) removed it, arguing that removal was 1

improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Whether the case should be

remanded depends on the interpretation of the following language in 28

U.S.C. § 1441(b), known as the “forum defendant rule,” which the

Case 2:09-cv-03450-GEB-GGH Document 17 Filed 07/01/10 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

parties dispute: “[an action based on diversity jurisdiction] shall be

removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and

served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Plaintiff argues since Defendant Alza

Corporation (“Alza”) is a citizen of California, the state in which

this action was brought, removal was improper. Defendants counter

since forum defendant Alza had not been served when OMJPI removed the

case, § 1441(b) authorized removal if removal occurs before the forum

defendant is served. Plaintiff rejoins, this interpretation of §

1441(b) would permit a defendant to remove a case before plaintiffs

have a sufficient opportunity to serve a forum defendant. (Plt.’s

Mot. to Remand 7:1-8:23.)

“The ‘properly joined and served’ language . . . [was] added

to § 1441(b) in 1948, [and] has widely been interpreted as reflecting

a Congressional intent to prevent the fraudulent joinder of forum

defendants in order to avoid removal.” Khashan v. Ghasemi, 2010 WL

1444884, at *2 (C.D. Cal.); see also Stan Winston Creatures, Inc. v.

Toys R Us, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 177, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“The

purpose of the ‘joined and served’ requirement is to prevent a

plaintiff from blocking removal by joining as a defendant a resident

party against whom it does not intend to proceed, and whom it does not

even serve.”); Brown v. Organon USA Inc., 2008 WL 2625355, at *7-*8

(D.N.J. 2008) (same); Allen v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 2008 WL 2247067,

at *6 (2008) (same); DeAngelo-Shuayto v. Organon USA Inc., 2007 WL

4365311, at *3 (D.N.J. 2007) (same); In re Aradia and Zometa Prod.

Liab. Litig., 2007 WL 2905247, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2007) (same). When

Congress added the “properly joined and served” language to the

statute:

Case 2:09-cv-03450-GEB-GGH Document 17 Filed 07/01/10 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

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 the state court dockets.

Thus, Congress would have had no thought to wording

the statute with this modern problem in mind.

Sullivan v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 575 F. Supp. 2d 640, 645 (D.N.J.

2006); see also Brown, 2008 WL 2625355, at *7 (“From a pragmatic

standpoint, a literal application would allow defendants to avoid the

imposition of the forum defendant rule as long as they are monitoring

state dockets and avoiding service.”). 

In Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176

n.1 (9th Cir. 1969), the Ninth Circuit indicated how the “joined and

served” language in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) should be construed as

follows: “Occasional holdings that unserved codefendants can be

ignored in deciding removal petitions stem from the . . .

misassumption that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), by implication, expanded

removal jurisdiction to permit removal, despite want of diversity, if

a resident defendant whose presence would defeat diversity had not

been served.” Therefore, notwithstanding the text of § 1441(b), which

states it applies only where the forum defendant has been served, the

Court departs from a literal interpretation here because “the

existence of diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of

the parties named and not from the fact of service.” Id. at 1176. A

case may be remanded under this principle upon the timely motion of a

plaintiff who did not have sufficient opportunity to effect service on

a forum defendant before removal.

Authorizing remand under such circumstances is consistent

with the purpose of § 1441(b) explained in Lively v. Wild Oats

Markets, 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006), as follows:

Case 2:09-cv-03450-GEB-GGH Document 17 Filed 07/01/10 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

Removal based on diversity jurisdiction is intended

to protect out-of-state defendants from possible

prejudices in state court. The need for such

protection is absent, however, in cases where the

defendant is a citizen of the state in which the

case is brought. Within this contextual framework,

the forum defendant rule allows the plaintiff to

regain some control over forum selection by

requesting that the case be remanded to state

court.

Id. at 940 (citations omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff seeks to return to the state forum he

selected since the case was removed before he had a sufficient

opportunity to serve the forum defendant. OMJPI removed this case a

mere two days after it was filed. Both OMJPI and Alza were

subsequently served within one month of Plaintiff filing the

complaint, and there is no indication that either defendant was joined

solely for the purpose of defeating removal. Under these

circumstances, the removal was “at odds with the underlying purpose of

the [statute].” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. P.I.E., Inc., 853

F.2d 721, 725-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

Since OMJPI removed this action before Plaintiff had a

sufficient opportunity to serve the forum defendant, Plaintiff

prevails on his remand motion. Therefore, this case is remanded to

the Solano County Superior Court in California.

Dated: June 30, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-03450-GEB-GGH Document 17 Filed 07/01/10 Page 4 of 4