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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products 

Liability Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court previously dismissed multiple cases from this MDL for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. See Docs. 20667, 21461, 21759. The parties have filed an updated

status report identifying 29 additional cases for which no federal jurisdiction exists. 

Docs. 21726 at 2-3, 21726-3. For reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss those cases 

without prejudice.

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on either federal question 

jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Courts “analyze federal 

question jurisdiction with reference to the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Yokeno v. Mafnas, 

973 F.2d 803, 807 (9th Cir. 1992). Under that rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when 

a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.” Scholastic 

Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaint 

must establish either that “federal law creates the cause of action or that . . . the plaintiff’s 

right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” 

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold &

Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. 

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).

Case 2:18-cv-00401-DGC Document 3 Filed 12/11/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

The master complaint in this MDL asserts seventeen state law claims. Doc. 364 

¶¶ 166-349. Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief 

on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 

Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809.

Subject matter jurisdiction must therefore be based on diversity of citizenship. See 

Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between 

citizens of different states involving claims greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Section 1332 requires complete diversity between the parties – that is, the citizenship of 

the plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. See Caterpillar, Inc. 

v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. is a citizen of New 

Jersey and Defendant Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a citizen of Arizona. See Doc. 364 

¶¶ 11-12; Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting 

that “a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where 

it has its principal place of business”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). Complete diversity 

does not exist, therefore, where the Plaintiff is a resident of either Arizona or New Jersey

and has sued both C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular. See Williams v. United 

Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Although diversity jurisdiction 

provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over state law claims, complete 

diversity is lacking in this case because both [plaintiff] and [defendant] are citizens of 

California.”).

The parties’ identify 29 pending cases in which diversity jurisdiction does not exist. 

Docs. 21726 at 2-3, 21726-3 (Ex. C).1 A district court may dismiss a case for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. 

1 The parties initially identified 30 such cases, but counsel for Defendants has 

informed the Court that one case, Shane Tice v. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., CV-16-

00832, was included in error (diversity jurisdiction exists because Tice is a New Jersey 

resident and has sued only Bard Peripheral Vascular, a citizen of Arizona). This case will 

be transferred to the New Jersey district court. See Doc. 21726 at 2.

Case 2:18-cv-00401-DGC Document 3 Filed 12/11/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that 

Rule 12(h)(3) permits a district court to “raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction[]

sua sponte”); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1230-

31 (9th Cir. 2006) (an MDL “transferee judge exercises all the powers of a district judge 

in the transferee district under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). The following cases 

lack subject matter jurisdiction and are dismissed without prejudice:

Case Caption Case Number Plaintiff’s 

Residence

1 Stephen Alaimo v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-02519 New Jersey

2 Clifton Atkins v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-02592 Arizona

3 Mostafa Badawi v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:17-cv-01853 New Jersey

4 Richard Barela v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:17-cv-02466 Arizona

5 Jennifer Bounassi v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-04084 New Jersey

6 Julie Bozak v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:16-cv-03290 Arizona

7 Matthew Brown v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:17-cv-02981 Arizona

8 Theressa Campbell v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-02658 New Jersey

9 Daniel Dipasquale v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-03292 New Jersey

10 Maria Garcia v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-01806 New Jersey

11 Priscilla Grainger v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-00395 New Jersey

12 Richard Hand v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-00401 New Jersey

13 Brian Hinchey v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-02757 New Jersey

14 Frances Hubler v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-01821 New Jersey

15 Teyrance Jackson v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-03879 New Jersey

16 John Lane v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:16-cv-04216 Arizona

17 Glenn Malloff v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-01651 Arizona

18 John Osborn v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-01380 Arizona

19 Celeste Paige v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-02672 New Jersey

20 Shakina Rainey v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-02702 New Jersey

21 Jeffery Raleigh v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:16-cv-04259 Arizona

Case 2:18-cv-00401-DGC Document 3 Filed 12/11/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

22 Michelle Raub v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-03884 New Jersey

23 Kenneth Russ v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-03795 Arizona

24 Jovanna Sagastume v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:17-cv-04435 New Jersey

25 Beverly Stokes v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:16-cv-04294 New Jersey

26 Paul Tillson v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:17-cv-02185 Arizona

27 Kenneth VanLuvender v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-02355 New Jersey

28 Kim Wesson v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:19-cv-04104 Arizona

29 Sharlene Williams v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. 2:18-cv-03196 New Jersey

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 11th day of December, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-00401-DGC Document 3 Filed 12/11/20 Page 4 of 4