Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02764/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02764-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ellen Ambroff
Plaintiff
Terry Ambroff
Plaintiff
American Medical Systems, Inc.
Defendant
McKesson Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLEN AMBROFF and TERRY AMBROFF,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS and

MCKESSION CORPORATION,

Defendants

 /

No. C-08-2764 MMC

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

Before the Court is defendant American Medical Systems, Inc.’s (“AMS”) Notice of

Removal filed June 3, 2008.

In their complaint, plaintiffs assert ten state law claims, each arising from the

allegation that plaintiff Ellen Ambroff was injured by a defective medical device, specifically,

an “APOGEE synthetic mesh system.” (See Compl. ¶ 14.) According to plaintiffs, after

Ellen Ambroff’s physician implanted the device, (see Compl. ¶ 13), she experienced

“extreme pain and discomfort” due to the device, and thereafter had “two corrective

surgeries for removal of the implanted mesh which resulted in gross deformities,” (see

Compl. ¶ 14). Plaintiffs further allege that Ellen Ambroff remains unable to “resume normal

activities including household duties and employment” as a result of the above-referenced

device. (See id.)

Case 3:08-cv-02764-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/20/08 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

1

Indeed, McKesson filed an answer to the complaint while the matter was pending in

state court, thus seemingly indicating it had no basis to demur to the face of the complaint.

2

The complaint names two defendants. Plaintiffs allege defendant AMS

“manufacturers, markets, advertises, promotes and sells” the “APOGEE synthetic mesh

systems,” (see id. ¶ 4), and that defendant McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”) sold to

Ellen Ambroff’s medical provider the particular APOGEE synthetic mesh system that was

implanted in her body, (see id. ¶ 13).

In its Notice of Removal, AMS asserts the district court has diversity jurisdiction over

plaintiffs’ complaint because, given the nature of the alleged injuries, the complaint, “on its

face,” alleges a claim for damages in excess of $75,000, (see Notice of Removal at 5:8-21),

and because there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. In that regard,

although AMS acknowledges the other defendant to the action, McKesson, is a citizen of

California, the same state of which each plaintiff is a citizen, AMS contends McKesson’s

citizenship should be disregarded because McKesson is a “fraudulently joined” defendant. 

(See id. at 4:1.)

“Fraudulent joinder is a term of art.” McCabe v. General Foods Corp., 811 F. 2d

1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987). “If the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident

defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state, the joinder

of the resident defendant is fraudulent.” Id.

Here, the complaint states a valid claim against McKesson under state law,

specifically, and at a minimum, the First and Second Causes of Action, each of which are

based on a theory of strict products liability. Under California law, an entity that places a

defective product into the stream of commerce can be held strictly liable for injuries caused

by the product. See, e.g., Bell v. Industrial Vangas, Inc., 30 Cal. 3d 268, 279 (1981)

(observing manufacturers and sellers of defective products can be held strictly liable for

“introducing a defective product into the stream of commerce”).1

“The defendant seeking removal to the federal court,” however, “is entitled to

present the facts showing the joinder to be fraudulent.” McCabe, 811 F. 2d at 1339. Thus,

Case 3:08-cv-02764-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/20/08 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 2

Getlin does not indicate who conducted the search.

3

in determining whether a defendant has been fraudulently joined, the district court may look

beyond the pleadings and consider evidence. See Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.

3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[F]raudulent joinder claims may be resolved by piercing the

pleadings and considering summary judgment-type evidence such as affidavits and

deposition testimony.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The burden is on the

removing defendant to prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that the plaintiff cannot

prevail against the non-diverse defendant. Hamilton Materials Inc. v. Dow Chemical Corp.,

494 F. 3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting defendant’s burden is to show it is “not

possible” for plaintiff to prevail against non-diverse defendant).

Here, AMS, in an attempt to meet such burden, submits the Declaration of Larry

Getlin (“Getlin”), AMS’s Senior Vice President of Corporation Compliance, Quality and

Legal. Getlin declares that AMS is the “only manufacturer and distributor of the APOGEE

synthetic mesh system,” (see Getlin Decl. ¶ 3), and that, after a “diligent search” of orders

and sales,2 AMS found “no records that it ever sold or distributed an APOGEE synthetic

mesh system to McKesson Corporation or any of its subsidiaries,” (see id. ¶ 4).

The Court finds Getlin’s declaration insufficient to establish it is “not possible” for

plaintiffs to prevail against McKesson. See Hamilton Materials, 494 F. 3d at 1206. 

Although Getlin states AMS did not directly sell the allegedly defective device to McKesson,

AMS offers no evidence to show McKesson would have been unable to obtain the device,

once it was placed in the stream of commerce by AMS, from a wholesaler or another party

who purchased the device from or through AMS. Nor has AMS offered any evidence to

support a finding that plaintiff Ellen Ambroff’s medical providers could only have obtained

the subject device from AMS or from an entity who directly purchased the device from

AMS.

In sum, because AMS has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that

plaintiffs cannot possibly establish any of their claims against McKesson, the Court lacks

Case 3:08-cv-02764-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/20/08 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

diversity jurisdiction over the instant complaint.

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of

California, in and for the County of San Francisco.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02764-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/20/08 Page 4 of 4