## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 8003 R ONAL D A ND E R S ON, et al., P la intif fs-R espo nd ents, v. B AYER C OR PO R A T I ON, B AYER H EALT HCARE LLC , a nd B AYER H EALT HCARE P HARMACEUTICALS, I NC ., D efend a nts-P etitio ners.
Petition fo r Lea ve to A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09- cv-00988

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge . N o. 10

- 8004 D ON J UAN B R OWN , et al., P la intif fs-R espo nd ents, v. B AYER C OR PO R A T I ON, B AYER H EALT HCARE LLC , a nd B AYER H EALT HCARE P HARMACEUTICALS, I NC ., D efend a nts-P etitio ners.
Peti tionfor L ea ve to A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09- cv-00989

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge .2 N os. 10

- 8003 , 10

- 8004, 10

- 8005 & 10

- 8006 N o. 10

- 8005 F R ED ERI CK B ANCROFT, et al., P la intif fs-R espo nd ents, v. B AYER C OR PO R A T I ON, B AYER H EALT HCARE LLC , a nd B AYER H EALT HCARE P HARMACEUTICALS, I NC ., D efend a nts-P etitio ners.
Petition fo r Lea ve to A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09- cv-00990

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judg e.
N o. 10

- 8006 F RAN CIS G. L ECKER, et al., P la intif fs-R espo nd ents, v. B AYER C OR PO R A T I ON, B AYER H EALT HCARE LLC , a nd B AYER H EALT HCARE P HARMACEUTICALS, I NC ., D efend a nts-P etitio ners.
Petition fo r Lea ve to A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09- cv-00991

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judg e.
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 22, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UNE 22, 2010N os. 10

- 8003 , 10

- 8004, 10

- 8005 & 10

- 8006 3 B efore F LA UM, M A NI ON, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Defendants ( col l ecti vel y r efe rred to a s “Ba y er ”) hav e pet i ti o ne d f o r l ea ve t o a ppea l the r emand o r der s i ss ue d b y the di st r ict c o ur t i n the f o ur abov e- capti oned cas es. I n fi ve separ ate , m os tly i denti cal com pla i nts i n sta te cour t, pl ai nti f f s s ued Bayer f or p er so n al inj u rie s t h ey a lleg e w er e c au se d by T ra sy lol, a pr es cr i pti o n medi ca ti o n manuf ac tu r ed by Ba y er . De f en dants r em ove d, i nvoki ng the “m as s acti on” provi si on o f t h e C l a s s Ac t i o n F a i r n e s s Ac t( “ C AF A” ) , wh i c h a l l o ws the r em ova l o fcas es j oi ni ng the cl ai m s o fa t l eas t 100 pla i nti f f s that o ther w i se m eetCA FA ’ s j uri sdic tio nal r equi r ement s. The di st r i ctc o ur t r em an ded f o ur o fthe fi ve cas es bec au se th ey con tained few er than 100 p lai nt iffs ( i n the fi fth cas e pl ai nti f f s m eant to i ncl ud e 9 9 pl ai nti f f s, b uta c t u a l l yn a med t wo - c o e xe c ut o r s i n t he s a me pa r a g r a ph f ora tot al o f10 0 pl ai nt iffs). B aye r ask s us to gr ant i ts peti ti ons f orr evi ew i n the f our case s r em anded to st ate cour t a nd hol d that ( 1) pl ai nti f f s ca nno t avoi d fe deral dive rs i ty j uri sdic ti on bycar vi ng the i r filings i nto fi ve separ ate pl eadi ngs, and ( 2) ther e i s di ver sity j uri sdic ti on o ve r mos t pl ai nt i f f’ s cl ai m s be ca us e t he c l ai m s o fthe smal l numbe r o fno n- di ve r se pl ai nt i f f s wer e f r au dul en t l y mi sj o i n e d a n d s h o u l d b e s e v e r e d

. B e c a u s e we ag r ee wi ththe di st r i ctc o ur t o n the fi r st que st i o n, we co nc l ud e t ha t we a r e wi t ho ut j ur i s di c t i o n t o r e a c h t he s e c o nd

. I n Aug us ta nd S e pt e mbe r o f2 0 0 9 , p l a i nt i f f s ’ c o unse l fi l ed i n St
. Cl ai r County, I l l i noi s, cl ai m s o n behal fo f 57 unrel ate d plai nti f f s, di vi ding the c l ai m s betw een f o ur v i r tu al l y i den ti ca l c o m pl ai nt s, us i ngv erba ti m l an -4 N os. 10

- 8003 , 10

- 8004, 10

- 8005 & 10

- 8006

B ec a u se i t jo in ed t h e cl a im s o f 10 0 o r m o re p la in tiffs, G i l m ore 1 v. BayerC orp. , N o. 09- 986- G PM ( S. D
. Il l. ) , w as not re m and ed b y the d istrict cou rt an d thu s is no t pa rt of this ap p eal. guage , al l egi ng tha t the pl ai nti f f s (o r thei r decedents) su ffer ed i nj uri es as a r esul t o fbei ng adm i ni ste re d Tr as y l o l dur i nghe ar t su r g er y . Ba y err emov ed, i nv o k i ng the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di ver si ty j uri sdic ti on o verthe dive rs e p l ai nti f f s’ cl ai m s byar gui ng tha t the few non- dive rs e pla i nti ffs had bee n f ra ud ule ntl y m i sj oi ned. The di str i ct cour t r em anded sua sponte. A fterr em and to St
. Cla ir County, pl ai nti f f s’ co unsel am ended the com pla i nts to add 11 1 new plai nti f f s, spre ad acr oss the f our exi sti ng sui ts. Thi s result ed i n a t ota l o f 10 0 pl ai nt i f f s i n G ilm o re, 5 i n Br own , 4 5 i n B anc roft, a nd 1 18 i n Leck er. Pl ai nti f f s’ counsel al so fi l ed a fi fth co m pla i nt, Ande rs on , na m i ngthr ee pl ai nt i f f s, o ne of w ho m was no ndive rs e. Def endants o nce a gai n re m ove d. T h e d i str i ct c o ur tr e man de d B a nc rof t, B row n, Leck er, a nd Ande rs on , rej ecti ng defendants’ a rg um ent that they s houl d be tr eat ed as a s i ngl e m ass act i on a nd def endants’ al ter nati ve ar gum ent that the non- dive rs e pl ai nti ff s s houl d have b e e n s e v e r e d f r o m the a c t i o n a s f r a ud ul e nt l y m i sj o i ne d. Defe nd ants then fi l ed thi s peti ti on f orp er m i ssi on t o appeal under 28 U

. S. C. § 1453( c) , a provi si on o fCA FA that cre ate s a n excepti on f orcl ass action s to the g ener al ru le t h at re m an d ord er s a re n ot rev iew ab le. Se ei d. ; 28 U
. S. C
. § 1447(d ). B ayer fi rst argu es th at p lai nt iffs’ case s m eet C A FA ’s d efi nition of a “ m a s s action” and thu s the district cou rtN os. 10

- 8003 , 10

- 8004, 10

- 8005 & 10

- 8006 5

er re d in re m an d in g th e ca se s. 28 U .S.C . § 13 32 (d )(11 )(B )(i) defi ne s a m as s ac ti o n a s “a ny c i vi l a ct i on . . . i n whi chthe m one taryr el i efc l ai m s o f1 00 o rmor e per so ns a re pr o po se d t o b e tr i ed j o i nt l y o n the grou nd tha t th e pl ai ntiffs ’ cla im s in vo lve co m m on q u es tio n s o f law or fa c t.” U nd erCA FA , such m ass act i ons “shal l be deem ed to be a cl ass act i on” re m ovabl e t o f edera l co urt, s o l ong as C A FA ’s o th er j u ris d ict ion al r e q u ire m en ts are m et
. Id. § 1 332 (d )(11 ) ( A )
. There i s no di spute thatthe othe r re quir em ents

— am ount i n controv er sy and m i ni m al dive rs i ty

— ar e m et i n ea c h of the f our case s that Baye r a pp e a l e d. Of c ours e, none ofthe i nstant f our case s a ctual l y i nvol ve th e cl ai m s o fmor e th an1 00 pl ai nt i f f s. Ba y er, ho wev er, ur g es us no t to pl ac e “t o o m uch wei g ht o n f o r m ” in the C A FA co n te x t. SeeM arshall v. H & R Blo ck Tax Servs
. , Inc. , 564 F. 3d 826, 828 (7th Cir
. 2009)
. They a rg ue thatpl ai nti f f s’ fi ve separ ate pl eadi ngs a re a tr anspare nt at tem pt to ci rcum vent CA FA , a nd , as such, sho uld be tr eat ed as a si ngl e m ass act i on. I n supp or t o fthi s a rg um ent, they ci te Fre em an v. B lue R idge P aper P roducts, Inc. , 55 1 F
. 3d 405 ( 6th Ci r . 20 08 )
. I n Fre e m an , the Si xth Cir cui t co nsi dered an appeal fro m the re m and offi ve re l ate d cases that had separa ted the pl ain ti f f s’ cl ai m s f ornui sance into six-m ont h p eriods in ord er to avoid m eeting C A FA ’s $5 m illion j u r i s d ict ion al a m ou n t. Id. at 407. The S i xth Cir cui t f ound that “ ther e was no col or abl e r ea so n f or bre akingup the l aw sui t i n thi s f ashi on, o therthan to av o i d fede r alj ur i sdi ct i on,” and thus he l d tha t th e dam age s s ought i n each sui t “ m u st be agg re gat ed” f or th e pur po se o fde te r m i ni ngwhethe r the a m o unt
- i nc on tr ov er sy req u ire m en t h ad be en m et
. Id.6 N os. 10

- 8003 , 10

- 8004, 10

- 8005 & 10

- 8006 Fre e m an , however, di d not a dd re ss the m ass act i on provi si on o fCA FA
. Thi s di sti ncti on i s i m port ant be cause CA FA st ate s that “ the t er m ‘ m ass act i on’ shallnot in c lu d e any civi l action i n w hich the claim s are j o i ne d u po n m o t i o n o fa de f e nd a nt
. ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 332( d)( 11) ( B)( i i ) ( I I )
. By e xcl ud i ng ca ses i n w hi ch th e cl ai m s wer e co ns o l i dat ed o n a de f en dan t’ s m o ti o n, Congre ss appears to have con tem pla ted thatso m e ca ses whi c h c o ul d h a v e b e e n b r o ughta s a ma s s a c t i o n wo uld , bec a us e o fthe wa y i n whi c h t he p l a i nt i f f s c ho s e t o s t r ucture thei r cl aim s, rem ai n outs i de ofCA FA ’ s g ra nt o f j u ris d ict io n . T h is is n ot n ec es sa rily a n om alo u s; aft er all, the g ener al r ule i n a d i ver si ty case i s that “ pla i nti f f s a s ma s t e r s o fth e c o mp l a i n tma y i n c l u d e ( o r o mi t ) c l a i ms orparties i n or der t o deter m i ne the f or um . ” Se eGar b i ev. D ai m l e r Chrys l e rC orp. , 21 1 F
. 3d 407, 41 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( ci ti ng C a t e rp i l l a rIn c . v . Wi l l i a ms , 482 U
. S. 386, 392 ( 1987 ))
. The o nl y a ppel l at e co ur t to ha ve addr es se d a n a r g um en t si m i l art o Ba y er ’ s ha s r ej ec te d i ts a ppr o ac h. I n Tanoh v. D ow Che m i ca l Co. , 56 1 F
. 3d 945 ( 9th Ci r. 20 09) , the N i nth Cir cui t co nsid er ed w hetherse ven s i m i l ar cas es, ea ch i nvol vi ng few erthan 100 pla i nti f f s, co u ld b e tre ate d as a si ngl e m ass a c tio n f orCA FA purposes . The Tanoh cou rt b e g a n b y n o t i n g th a tu n d e r th e pl ai n l a n g u a g e o fC AF A, non e of the st ate co urt case s were a m ass act i on be cause th ey c on ta in ed few er th an 10 0 p lain tif f s ea c h

. Id. at 953. The co ur t went o n to r ej ec t th e defen dan t’s st r uctur i ng ar gumen t, r e l y i ngo n § 1 3 3 2 ( d) ( 1 1 ) ( B) ( i i ) ( I I ) t o c o nc l ud e that “Congr ess appears to have f or ese en the situ ati on pr es en te d i n thi s ca se a nd s peci fi call y de ci ded th e i ss ue i n pla i nti f f s’ f avo r. ” Id. at 953. Li ke Bayer here , Dow neve rN os. 10

- 8003 , 10

- 8004, 10

- 8005 & 10

- 8006 7 f o r m al l y move d t o c o ns o l i dat e th e state c o ur t ca se s. The N inth Circu it conclu d ed that “ [t]h e absen ce of a f o r m almot i o n ca nno t bl i nka way the f ac t th atDo w, the defen dan t, i s as k i ngus t o c o nsol i dat e se par at e ac ti o ns f orpurposes o fapply i ng the ‘ m ass act i on’ pro vi sio n .” Id. at 954. W e ag r ee wi tho ur c o l l ea g ue s o n the Ni nth C ircuit
. The m as s a c tio n p ro vis ion giv es p l a i n tiffs th e c h oic e t o file separ ate act ions that do not quali fy f orCA FA j uri sdic

tio n. Th e instan t cases cont ain few er than 100 p lai nt iffs and thus ar e no t re m ov ab l e under the pl ai n l anguage o f t h e s t a t u t e . B a y e r ’ s a r g u me n tth a tth es e s e p a r a t e l a wsui ts be t re ate d as o ne ac ti on i s t antam ount t o a r equest to conso l i date them

— a re quest that Congre ss has expli ci tl y s tat ed cannot beco m e a bas i s f orr em ov al as a m as s ac ti o n. Of cour se, subsequent acti on by the pla i nti f f s i n state c o u r t m igh t re n d er th es e c laim s re m ov ab le. See B ulla rd v. Bur l i ngt on N or t he r n S ant a F eRai l way Co. , 5 35 F .3d 75 9, 762 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( hol din g th at a ca se i n sta te cour t m ay be c o me a r e mo v a b l e ma s s a c t i o n “ l o n g a ft e r fi l i n g ” i ft he cl ai m s o fm or e than 100 pl ai nti f f s a re subse quently pr oposed to be tr i ed j o i nt l y )
. I n B ulla rd, we speci fi cal l y des c r ib e d a s r e mov a b l e a hy po t he t i c a l s e t o f “ 1 5 s ui t s ” with “10 pla i nti f f s e ach” that a re pro posed to be tr i ed to

ge th er . Id. W e al so no te d tha t t he § 1 33 2( d) ( 11 ) e xtended to a s i tuati on wh er e o nl y a few r epres entat i ve pl aint i f f s woul d ac tu al l y g o to tr i al, wi th cl ai m or iss ue p r e c l us i o n t o b e u s e d t o d i s p o s e o fth e r e ma i n i n g c l a i ms w ith ou t t ria l. Id. S u c h a r e q u e s tfr o m th e p l a i n t i f f s s e e ms8 N os. 10

- 8003 , 10

- 8004, 10

- 8005 & 10

- 8006

Li k e t h e Ni n t h C i r c u i ti n Tanoh , w e exp ress no op inio n a s to 2 whethe r a st at e c our t ’ s s ua s pont e j oi nder ofc l ai m s m i ght a l l o w a d e f e n d a n tt o r e mo v e s e p a r a t e l y fi l e d s t a t e c o u r tc l a i ms to federal court as a s ingle “m ass act ion. ” 561 F. 3d at 956. p os sib le (p er h ap s e ve n lik ely ) at so m e fu tu re p oin t in th es e c as es , give n th e s im ila r ity of th eir cla im s. B u t itis not yeta cer tai nty, and Congre ss has f orbi dd en us fro m fi ndi ngj ur i sdi ct i o n b as ed o n Bay er ’ s su g g es ti o n tha t th e c l a i ms b e t r i e d t o g e t he r . S o l o nga s p l a i nt i f f s ( orp e r ha ps the s tat e co urt) do notp ropose to tr y these case s j oin tly in stat e co urt, theydo notco nsti tute a m ass acti on r em ovabl e t o f edera l co urt. 2 Find ing no fed eral j urisd iction un d e r C A FA , w e turn to defe nd ants’ alternat i ve ar gum ent f ordi ver si ty j uri sdi ct i o n, fr au dul en t m i sj o i nde r . Be f o r e reachi ngthe mer i t s o fthi s a r g ume nt, h o we v e r, we mus tc o ns i der pla i nti f f s’ ar gum ent that we ar e without a pp el l ate j uri sdict i on t o heari t. Typica l l y, federa l co urts o fappeal ar e ba rred fro m re vi ew i ng distr i ct c ourto rder s r em anding re m ove d c as es to st at e c ou rt
. See 28 U
. S. C. § 1 447( d). H owever, an excepti on e xi sts wh en a partyap peal s “ f ro m an o rder gr anti ng or denyi ng a m oti on t o re m and a cl ass act i on t o the S t a t e courtfr o m whi c h i twa s r e mov e d. ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 14 53 ( c)
. I n B ri ll v. Co untryw id e H o m e Loa ns, Inc. , 42 7 F. 3d 44 6 (7t h Cir

. 20 05) , we hel d that “ [ b] ecause § 1453 (c)( 1) perm its app ell ate review of rem an d ord ers
‘ notwiths tandi ng sect i on 1447 ( d), ’ w e ar e f re e to c onsider any pot enti al er ro r i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on , no tN os. 10

- 8003 , 10

- 8004, 10

- 8005 & 10

- 8006 9 j ust a m i sta ke i n appli cati on o f[ CA FA ]. ” Id. at 451- 52. P lainti f f s do not add re ss B ri ll , wh i c h a tfi r s tg l ance m i ght a pp earto co ntro l her e. W e ha ve, ho wev er, a n i nde pen den t dut y t o e xa m i ne the b asi s f oro ur j uri sdic ti on, and thi s ca se diff er s fro m B ri ll i n o ne i m po r ta ntr es pec t. I n B ri ll , ther e was neve r any di spute ab out w he th erthe sta te cour t ca se w as a cl ass act i on. Ins te ad, we w er e co nfr onte d w i th bo th CA FA and non- CA FA th eo rie s o ffedera l subj ect- m att er j ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r a pa r ti cul arc l as s ac ti o n, a nd c o ncl ude d tha t we ha d the juris di ct i o n t o a ddr es s bo tha r g um en ts
. 4 27F
. 3d at4 51

- 52
. Her e, ho wev er, w e h av e co nclud ed that the rem an d e d c ases d o not m eet C A FA ’s de fini ti on o fa cl ass act i on, bec ause they ar e no t m ass ac tio n s a s d efin ed in t h e s ta tu te . F r o m th e p lain l anguage of § 1 453( c) , wh i ch exte nd s a pp el l ate j uri sdic

ti ono nl y t o r e man d o r de r s f o r “ c l a s s a c t i o ns ” a s de fi ned i n CA FA , i t f ol l ows that w e l ack j uri sdic ti on t o proce ed further

. Because the di str ict court proper l y c oncl ud ed t h a tth e ab o v e - c a p t i o ne d ca s e s we r e n o tma s s a c t i o n s , we ha ve no j ur i sdi ctio n t o he ara n a ppea l fr o m the r emand ord er. De f e nd a nt s ’ p e t i t i o n f o r l e a v e t o a pp e a l u nd e r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 453( c) i s D ENI ED .

6- 22- 10