IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CATHERINE L. MARTIN,

as Personal Representative of the 

Estate of DARRELL G. MARTIN, 

deceased,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-144/RS-CJK

MEDTRONIC, INC., and

SARACARE CORP., 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 10) and Defendant Medtronic, 

Incorporated’s (“Medtronic”) Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 16).

The jurisdiction of this case is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida. Medtronic is a citizen of Minnesota, and Defendant 

SaraCare Corporation (“SaraCare”) is a citizen of Florida. As the complaint now stands, 

complete diversity does not exist and there is no jurisdiction for this court to hear the 

claims. 

Medtronic asserts that SaraCare was fraudulently joined in this action to defeat 

diversity and is, thus, an improper party. A fraudulently joined party must be dismissed

if a defendant shows that “there is no possibility the plaintiff can establish a cause of 

action against the resident defendant.” Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 

Case 5:11-cv-00144-RS-CJK Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 3
1297 (11th Cir. 2007). The removing party bears the burden of establishing fraudulent 

joinder. Petty v. Wyeth, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28725 (N.D. Fla. 2004). 

Plaintiff asserts, among other things, strict products liability claims against 

SaraCare (Doc. 1, p. 91-95) for an allegedly defective insulin pump. Generally, strict 

liability extends to those in the “distributive chain” including “retailers, wholesalers, and 

distributors.” Samuel Friedland Family Enters. v. Amoroso, 630 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 

1994). Strict liability is applicable to distributors of medical products. Porter v. 

Rosenberg, 650 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). 

Strict liability, however, does not generally apply to doctors or hospitals that use a 

defective medical device incidental to their services. Id. Similarly, strict liability does 

not apply to pharmacists who simply dispense prescription drugs and play no role in their

preparation. Fontanez v. Parenteral Therapy Assocs., 974 So. 2d 1101, 1105 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 2007). 

Plaintiff asserts that SaraCare “is engaged in the for-profit sale or distribution of 

medical supplies” including the insulin pump in question (Doc. 10, p. 2). Defendants, on 

the other hand, contend that SaraCare had “absolutely no involvement in the design, 

testing, manufacture, sale, advertisement, marketing, promotion, labeling, or distribution” 

of the insulin pump (Doc. 1, p. 7). 

SaraCare admits that its role in this case was (1) to confirm that decedent’s letter 

of medical necessity met Blue Cross Blue Shield’s guidelines for reimbursement; and (2) 

to take the order and route it to a third party authorized Medtronic distributor for direct 

Case 5:11-cv-00144-RS-CJK Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 2 of 3
shipment (Doc. 20, p. 5).1

 Medtronic also asserts that SaraCare collected “the required 

copayments or deductible from decedent.” (Doc. 1, p.8). 

Defendants compare SaraCare’s role in this action to that of a pharmacist who 

may not be liable for properly filled prescriptions (Doc. 1, p. 8). On the other hand, 

Plaintiff argues that SaraCare is a traditional distributor. Here, the product that allegedly 

caused the harm is the pump itself, not the insulin. Because Plaintiff claims that the 

pump malfunctioned, the traditional medical device line of strict liability cases governs. 

And, even though SaraCare never took possession of the insulin pump, its role in the 

situation was part of the “distributive chain.” It took the decedent’s order and payment 

and routed it to a third-party who actually possessed the pump and shipped it. For its 

services, it made a profit. A strict products liability claim, therefore, can be maintained 

against SaraCare. It is a proper party, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist. 

The Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the 

Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida. 

ORDERED on June 22, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1 Because SaraCare’s Motion for Summary Judgment asserts that it is an improper party to this action, I consider it 

in this Motion for Remand. 

Case 5:11-cv-00144-RS-CJK Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 3 of 3