# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 19 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Dan ie l Ra sk as

Pla in ti ff -App el le e

v.

Jo hn so n & Jo hn so n; McNei l-P PC, In c.

Defe nd an ts -App el la nt

s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Mar jie Lev y

Pla in ti ff -App el le e

v. Pfi zer, In c.

Defe nd an t-Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __Lesl ie Yoff ie

Pla in ti ff -App el le e

v.

Bayer Healt hc are LLC

Defe nd an t-Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 12 , 20 13

Fi le d: Ju ne 26 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Jo hn so n & Jo hn so n, McNe il -PPC

, Pfi zer, In c., an d Bayer Heal th care LLC (co ll ect i v e l y, " Defen da nt s" ) ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t's rem an d or de r. The di st ric t

co ur t he ld th at Defen da nt s fai le d to es ta bl is h th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t

un de r th e Cl as s Acti on Fai rn es s Act ("C AFA"), co di fie d in rel ev an t pa rt at 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 (d )(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e fo un d a la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

.

-2

-Bec au se we de te rm in e th at Defen da nt s m et th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t,

we rev ers e an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co ur t.

I. Back gr ou nd

Mar jie Lev y , Lesl ie Yof

fie

, an d Dan ie l Ras ka s (co ll ect iv el y , "Pl ai nt iff s" ) fil ed

th ree se pa rat e pu ta ti ve cl as s- act io n su it s in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t, al le gi ng Defen da nt s vi ol at ed th e Mi ss ou ri Mer ch an di si ng Prac ti ces Act, Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 40 7.0 10 et se q. ,

an d con sp ire d with un kn own th ird pa rti es to de cei ve cu st om ers in to th ro win g away

m ed ic at io ns aft er th ei r ex pi rat io n da te s, kn owi ng th at th e m ed ic at io ns were sa fe an d

effe ct iv e be y on d th e ex pi rat io n da te

. Mar jie Lev y su ed Pfi zer fo r it s us e of ex pi rat io n da te s on it s Adv il pr od uc ts ; Lesl ie Yof fie su ed Bayer fo r it s us e of ex pi rat io n da te s

on Bayer Asp iri n; an d Dan ie l Ras ka s su ed Jo hn so n & Jo hn so n an d McNe il -PPC fo r th ei r us e of ex pi rat io n da te s on Ty le no l Co ld Mu lt i-S y m pt om

. Defen da nt s rem ov ed

to th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri un de r CAFA.
Each pl ai nt iff fil ed a m ot io n to rem an d clai m in g th at CAFA’s $5 m il li on am ou nt in

co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t was no t m et

. The di st ric t co ur t th en co ns ol i d a t e d t h e

m ot io ns for a si ng le he ari ng

.

Defen da nt s’ ev i d e n c e to es ta bl is h th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t

co ns is te d of da ta on sa le s of th ei r res pe ct iv e m ed ic at io ns in Mi ss ou ri du rin g th e fiv ey ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns ti m e pe rio d. See Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 51 6.2 10

. Pl ai nt iff s

co un te red th at th es e sa le s fig ur es were in su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf y th e a mo u n t in

co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t, as Pl ai nt iff s are on ly se ek in g to reco ve r da m ag es fo r

m ed ic at io ns di sc ard ed an d re pl aced

.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n to rem an d. The co ur t fo un d th at

D e f e n da nt s ha d no t m et th ei r bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve r s y

req ui rem en t, s ta ti ng :

-3

-Defen da nt s ha ve pr ov id ed ex te ns iv e da ta of sa l e s o f th ei r res pe ct iv e

pr od uc ts in qu es ti on t o c i t i z en s of Mi ss ou ri. Howev er, de fen da nt s do

no t pr op os e a lo gi cal fo rm ul a fo r cal cu la ti ng th e po te nt ia l da m a ge s in th is cas e us in g on ly th e to ta l sa le s da ta pr ov id ed

. In fact

, no ne of th e de fen da nt s pres en ts su ch a fo rm ul a or m et ho do lo gy fo r cal cu la ti ng th e po te nt ia l da m ag es , bu t rat he r as ks th e co ur t to pr es um e th at th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y m

us t sa ti sf y th e juri sd ic ti on al th res ho ld ba se d on th e hi gh

sa le s fig ur es al on e. Thi s ty pe of sp ecu la ti on is no t s uf

fic ie nt to sat is fy th e juri sd ic ti on al bu rd en on de fen da nt s. As ex pl ai ne d in Ong st ad v. Pi pe r Ja ffra y & Co

., 40 7 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 85

, 10 92 (D.N.D

. 2 00 6)

, "[n ]eith er pa rty ha s pr ov id ed th e Co ur t wit h a rel ia bl e meth od to de te rm in e, or ev en gu es st im at e , " th e va lu e of th e m ed ic at io n in

co nt ro ve rs y in th es e cas es

. The re f o r e , I ag ree wit h ot he r co ur ts th at ha ve co ns id ered th is is su e th at be cau se th e am ou nt of da m ag es i s in de te rm in ab le at th is st ag e of th e pr oc eed in gs , de fen da nt s ha ve no t m et th ei r bu rd en of e st ab li sh in g s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er t hi s ca se

.

Defen da nt s fil ed a req ue st wit h th is Co ur t fo r rev ie w of th e rem an d or de r pu rs ua nt to
28 U.S.C. § 1 45 3( c). W e g ran te d t he req ue st

.

II. Ana lysis

"We rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t's or de r to rem an d a rem ov ed cas e fo r la ck

of su bjec t m at te r juri sd i c ti on ." Bel l v. Hers he y Co

., 55 7 F.3 d 95 3, 95 6 (8 th Ci r.
20 09 ). CAFA "co nf

ers fed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er cl as s act io ns whe re, a mo n g o th er th in gs , 1) th ere is m in im al di ve rs it y ; 2 ) t he pr op os ed cl as s co nt ai ns at le as t 10 0

m em be rs ; and 3) t he am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y is at le as t $5 m il li on in th e ag gr eg at e."

P l u be ll v. Mer ck & Co

., 43 4 F.3 d 10 70

, 10 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ci ti ng 28 U

. S

. C

. § 13 32 (d )). The di st ric t co u r t de te rm in ed "t he is su e of fed eral juri sd ic ti on in [th e

cu rren t ca se s] cen te rs on th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y ."

"[A] pa rty se ek i n g to rem ov e un de r CAFA m us t es ta bl is h th e am ou nt in

co nt ro ve rs y by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. . . ." Bel l, 5 57 F.3d at 9 58

. Here,

-4

-in or de r to m e e t t h ei r res pe ct iv e bu rd en s, each de fen da nt rel ie s on it s own sa le s

fig ur es in Mi ss ou ri du rin g th e rel ev an t st at ut or y ti m e pe rio d. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d,

an d Pl ai nt iff

s arg ue on ap pe al

, t h a t t he se fig ur es can no t es ta bl is h th e am ou nt in

co nt ro ve rs y be cau se th ey are ov eri nc lu si ve , as Pl ai nt iff s are o nl y at te m

pt in g to

reco ve r da m ag es fo r t h e med ic at io ns wro ng fu ll y di sc ard ed an d rep la ced du e to
Defen d a n ts ' pr act ic es

. Howev er, whe n de te rm in in g th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y , t he

qu es ti on "'i s no t w h e t h e r th e da m ag es ar e gr eat er th an th e req ui si te am ou nt
, bu t
whe th er a fact fin de r mig ht le ga ll y co nc lu de th at th ey are.'" Id

. at 95 9 (q uo ti ng Kop p

v. Kop p, 28 0 F.3 d 88 3, 88 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ); se e al so Pret ka v. Kol te r Ci ty P la za II,

In c., 60 8 F.3 d 74 4, 75 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) ("Th e po in t is th at a rem ov in g de fen da nt is

no t req ui red to pr ov e t h e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y be y on d al l do ub t or to ba ni sh al l

un cert ai nt y

ab ou t i t." ).

Oth er ci r c u i ts ha ve reject ed si m il ar ov eri nc lu si ve arg um en ts

. In Sp iv ey v.
Vert ru e, In c., th e pl ai nt iff s fil ed a cl as s act io n la wsu it in st at e co ur t to reco ve r al le ge d

un au th or iz ed cred it card ch arg es

. 52 8 F.3 d 98 2, 98 3 (7 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The de fen da nt

rem ov ed to fed eral di st ric t co ur t un de r CAFA an d su bm it te d an affi da vi t de ta il in g it s

to ta l cred it card ch arg es to es ta bl is h th e am ou nt in c o n tro ve rs y req ui rem en t. Id

. at
98 5. The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at th is was in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th e a mo un t in

co nt ro ve rs y be cau se th e de fen da nt "d id no t co nc ed e th at mo r e t ha n $5 m il li on in

ch arg es was un au th or iz ed ." Id

. The Sev en th Ci rcu it rev ers ed

, fin di ng th at th e to ta l

ch arg es were su ffi ci en t to m eet th e de fen da nt 's bu rd en be cau se pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m th at
th ey were s ub jecte d t o s om e u nl awfu l ch arg es pu t in to co nt ro ve rs y th e pr op rie ty of

a l l o f th e ch arg es , an d th e su m of al l of th e ch arg es ex ceed ed $5 m il li on

. I d

. a t
98 5– 86

.

Si m il arl y , th e Nin th Ci rcu it he ld th at ev id en ce of t o t a l c ha rg es fo r la nd li ne

te le ph on e se rv ic es was s uf fic ie nt to m eet th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t i n

a cl as s- act io n su i t a l le gi ng th e de fen da nt un la wfu ll y ch arg ed so m e cu st om ers fo r la nd li ne te le ph on e se rv ic e wit ho ut th ei r co ns en t. Lewis v. Veri zo n Co m m c'n s, In c.,

-5

-62 7 F.3 d 39 5, 40 0– 02 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Rel y in g on Sp iv ey , th e co ur t he ld th at th e to ta l

ch arg es es ta bl is he d th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t be cau se "[t ]he am ou nt in

c on tro ve rs y is si m

pl y an es ti m at e of th e to ta l am ou nt in di sp ut e, no t a pr o s p e c t i v e

as se ss m en t o f de fen da nt 's l ia bi li ty." Id. at 40 0.

In th e cu rren t ca se , each de fen da nt 's affi da vi t det ai li ng th e to ta l sal es of th ei r

res pe ct iv e m ed ic a t i o n s in Mi ss ou ri m eet s th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t.
Fi rs t, de fen da nt Pfi zer pr od uc ed an affi da vi t st at in g th at sa le s fro m th e rel ev an t Adv il

pr od uc ts were ov er $1 4 m il li on

. Nex t, de fen da nt s Jo hn so n & Jo hn so n an d McNe il

PPC pr od uc ed a n affi da vi t st at in g th ei r to ta l sa le s of Ty le no l Co ld Mu lt i-S y m pt om

as $3 .3 m il li on

. W he n co ns id eri ng th e to ta l sa le s in co nju nc ti on wit h th e req ue st fo r

pu ni ti ve da m ag es th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t is m et

. See Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 51 0.2 65 .1(2 ) (li m it in g pu ni ti ve da m ag es to up to "[f ]ive ti m es th e ne t am ou nt of th e jud gm en t” ); Herv ey v. Mo

. Dep 't of Co rr., 37 9 S.W .3d 15 6, 16 5 (Mo

. 20 12 ) (h ol di ng th at "n et am ou nt of th e jud gm en t" fo r p u r p o s e s of cal cu la ti ng pu ni ti ve da m ag es in cl ud es th e at to rn ey 's fee award ); se e al so One Po in t So lu ti on s, LLC v. Bo rch ert
, 48 6

F

. 3 d 3 42 , 3 48 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (s ta ti ng th at pu ni ti ve da m ag es can be in cl ud ed w h e n de te rm in in g th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y ). Fi na ll y , de fen da nt Bayer pr ov id ed an affi da vi t st at in g th at it s sa le s fro m cert a i n Bayer Asp iri n pr od uc ts were ov er $1 9

m il li on

. All of th es e sa le s fig ur es are su ffi ci en t to e s t ab li sh th e am ou nt in

1

co nt ro ve rs y

req ui rem en t b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.

The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at Bayer's affi da vi t co ul d no t be us ed to es ta bl is h th e 1

am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y be cau se it in cl ud ed sa le s fro m va rio us Bayer Asp iri n pr od uc ts
, an d Pl a i n t i f

f s on ly i nt en de d to in cl ud e a pr od uc t na m ed "Gen ui ne Bayer As pi rin ." Howev er, Pl ai nt iff

s's co m pl ai nt de sc rib es th e m ed ic at io n in co n t r ov ers y as "Ba y er Asp iri n" or "Ba y er As p i r i n pr od uc ts ." The co m pl ai nt ne ve r ap pe ars to li m it th e

m ed ic at io n t o "Gen ui ne Bayer Asp iri n," an d Pl ai nt iff s can no t at te m

pt to li m it th e

m ed ic at io n aft er th e fact to de feat juri sd ic ti on

. See Harg is v. Acces s Cap it al Fu nd in g, LLC, 67 4 F.3 d 78 3, 78 9– 90 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (s ta ti ng th at CAFA juri sd ic ti on is de te rm in ed by "th e o pe rat iv e co m pl ai nt at t he ti m e o f rem ov al ").

-6

-"On ce th e pr op on en t of fed eral juri sd ic ti on ha s ex pl ai ne d pl au si bl y ho w th e

st ak es ex ceed $5 m il li on ,” as Defen da nt s ha ve in th is cas e, “ th en th e cas e be lo ng s in

f e d e r a l c o u rt un le ss it is le ga ll y im po ss ib le fo r th e pl ai nt iff to reco ve r th at m uc h." Sp iv ey , 5 28 F.3 d at 98 6 (in te rn al ci ta t i o n om it te d)

. Eve n if it is hi gh ly i m pr ob ab le

th at th e Pl ai nt iff

s wil l reco ve r th e am ou nt s Defen da nt s ha ve pu t in to co nt ro ve rs y , th is

do es no t m eet th e le ga ll y im po ss ib le st an da rd

. See Keel in g v. Esu ran ce In s. Co

., 66 0

F.3 d 27 3, 27 5 (7 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s ta ti ng th at th e “ le ga ll y im po ss ib le ” t e s t i s n o t m et

ev en if it is “ im

pr ob ab le ” th at pl ai nt iff

s wil l r e c ov er th e en ti re am ou nt th at th e de fen da nt s es ta bl is he d a s b ei ng “ in co nt ro ve rs y ”).

Fu rth er, Defen da nt s are no t req ui red to pr ov id e a "fo rm ul a or m et ho do lo gy fo r cal cu la ti ng th e po te nt ia l da m ag es " m o r e a c c ur at el y , as th e di st ric t co ur t he ld

. W e h a v e s p e c i fic al ly reject ed th e ne ed fo r th is ki nd of fo rm ul a or m et ho do lo gy, as it

wou ld req ui re a de fen da nt to "co nf es s li ab il it y " fo r th e en ti re juri sd ic ti on al am ou nt

. Hart is v. Ch ic ag o Tit le In s. Co

., 69 4 F.3 d 93 5, 94 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Sp iv ey , 52 8 F.3 d at 98 6) ; se e al so Lewis

, 62 7 F.3 d at 40 0 ("To es t a b l i s h t h e juri sd ic ti on al

am ou nt
, [th e de fen da nt ] ne ed n o t c o nc ed e li ab il it y fo r th e en ti re am ou nt
, whi ch is

wha t th e di st ric t c ou rt was in es se nc e de m an di ng by effe ct iv el y as ki ng [th e de fen da nt ] to ad m it th at at le as t $5 m il li on of th e bi ll in gs were 'un au th or iz ed ' wit hi n th e m ean in g o f th e co m

pl ai nt .").

Pl ai nt iff s al so arg ue th at Defen da nt s' affi da vi ts are in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th e

am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t be cau se th ey co nt ai n in ad m is si bl e he ars ay

. W e reject Pl ai nt iff

s' arg um en t. As we ha ve rece nt ly st at ed

, " [ t ]h e rem ov in g pa rty's
'bu rd en of de sc rib in g ho w th e co nt ro ve rs y ex ceed s $5 m il li on ' co ns ti tu te s 'a pl ead in g

req ui rem en t, no t a de m an d fo r pr oo f.'" Hart is

, 69 4 F.3 d at 94 4– 45 (q uo ti ng Sp iv ey , 52 8 F.3 d at 98 6) ; se e al so Pr e t k a , 60 8 F.3 d at 75 5 ("Th e su bs ta nt iv e juri sd ic ti on al

req ui rem en ts of rem ov al do no t li m it th e types of ev id en ce th at m ay be us ed to sa ti sf y th e pr ep on de ran c e o f th e ev id en ce st an da rd

. Defen da nt s m ay in tro du ce th ei r own

-7

-affi da vi ts
, de cl arat io ns , or ot he r do cu m en ta ti on —p ro vi de d of co ur se th at rem ov al is

pr oc ed ur al ly pro pe r.").

III. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we va cat e th e di st ric t cou rt' s ord er and rem an d for

a d is po si ti on on th e m eri ts

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-8

-