Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03076/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03076-5/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DUNSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORDIS CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case Nos. 16-cv-03076-SI 

16-cv-03080-SI

16-cv-03082-SI

16-cv-03083-SI

16-cv-03085-SI

16-cv-03086-SI

16-cv-03087-SI

16-cv-03088-SI

16-cv-04012-SI

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING RE: CAFA JURISDICTION

Defendant Cordis Corporation has removed nine separate state court actions to federal 

court, alleging jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d).1 In each notice of removal, Cordis asserted that these cases were in the form of 

a mass action:

in which monetary relief claims of more than 100 persons are proposed to be tried 

jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or 

facts; the parties are of at least minimally diverse citizenship; the aggregate amount 

in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; and at least one plaintiff puts more than 

$75,000 in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs. 

See Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of Removal). 

These nine cases were assigned to nine different judges in this district. On July 27, 2016, 

the court in 16-cv-3080 issued a Referral for Purposes of Determining Relationship, pursuant to 

Local Rule 3-12(c). Defendants Cordis Corporation and Cardinal Health opposed the related case 

referral on the basis that “the parties are not substantially the same” and the “transactions and 

 

1 Cases 16-cv-03082, 16-cv-03083, 16-cv-03085, 16-cv-03086, 16-cv-03087 and 16-cv-03088

were removed on June 6, 2016. Case 16-cv-4012 was removed on July 15, 2016.

Case 3:16-cv-03076-EMC Document 33 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Northern District of California

events are not substantially the same.” Dkt. No. 30, 3:16-cv-03076-SI. On August 4, 2016, the 

undersigned judge of the low-numbered case in the Referral, determined that the cases are related. 

Consequently, all nine actions are now pending before the undersigned.2

In the meantime, various motions have been filed in the various actions. Some plaintiffs

filed motions to remand, which have since been re-noticed. See Dkt. Nos. 16 & 34, 3:16-cv03080-SI; Dkt. Nos. 15 & 37, 3:16-cv-03083-SI; Dkt. Nos. 14 & 33, 3:16-cv-03085-SI; Dkt. No. 

16 & 40, 3:16-cv-03086-SI; Dkt. Nos. 20 & 47, 4:16-cv-03088-SI. Defendants in some cases filed 

motions to dismiss, which some plaintiffs opposed with motions to stay; some of those stay 

motions have been granted or re-noticed. See Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 18 (order), 3:16-cv03076-SI; Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 17 (mot. to stay) & 20 (stay order), 3:16-cv-03080-SI; 

Dkt. No. 7 (mot. to dismiss), 3:16-cv-03082-SI; Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 16 (mot. to stay)

& 38 (re-notice mot. to stay), 3:16-cv-03083-SI; Dkt. No. 7 (mot. to dismiss), 3:16-cv-03085-SI; 

Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 17 (mot. to stay), 3:16-cv-03086-SI; Dkt. Nos. 16 (mot. to 

dismiss) & 26 (mot. to stay), 3:16-cv-03087-SI; Dkt. Nos. 7 (mot. to dismiss) & 21 (mot. to stay) 

& 26 (stay order), 3:16-cv-03088-SI. Defendant Cardinal Health filed a motion to dismiss in two 

cases on the basis of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 12 (mot. to dismiss), 3:16-cv-03086-SI; 

Dkt. No. 13 (mot. to dismiss), 3:16-cv-03088-SI. In addition, two judges, including the 

undersigned, have issued orders to show cause as to the basis of CAFA jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 

27, 3:16-cv-03076-SI; Dkt. No. 22, 3:16-cv-03082-SI.

To facilitate the orderly processing of these matters, all pending motions and case 

management conferences in the above-captioned cases are STAYED pending this Court’s ruling

on whether there is federal jurisdiction over these cases.

 

2

There is at least one other Cordis case in this district alleging a TrapEase IVC filter product 

defect, 4:16-cv-02500-JSW, Cottrell v. Cordis Corporation et al. That case was not included in 

the Referral for Purposes of Determining Relationship, and accordingly was not considered. It 

appears from the file, however, that jurisdiction over that case is premised on diversity, not CAFA.

Case 3:16-cv-03076-EMC Document 33 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs who wish to file a supplemental brief of no more than 10 pages on the

question of federal jurisdiction may do so by August 11, 2016. Defendants who wish to file a

response of no more than 10 pages may do so by August 16, 2016. A hearing on this matter 

is set for 10:00am August 19, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03076-EMC Document 33 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 3