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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 6- 25 24

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

Elai ne Ro bi ns on ; Hel en Psa ras ; Re be cca C ou tu re; Vane sa Fo rd ; Geo rg ia Lee
Harl an ; Cl ai re A. Hol m es ; Ti na Loo m is ; J ua na Mi le s; Delo ris Mi tc he ll ; Hi m il ce Neg ro n; Caro l L. Qua ll s; Rh on da Ro bi ns on ; Har rie t L. Sco tt ; Ch arl ot te L. Shaw;
Su sa n M . Sim co x; Lin da C. Tang ua y ; Vi ol et E. W y ers ; Ki m Dil in g; Reb ek ah
McDo na ld ; So co rro Pere z; Cy nt hi a Wedd le ; M ary Hig do n; Yol an da Bak er; Pri sc il la Bil li ng sl ea; Yio na Bry an t; Dian e Ezel l; Jan et Gall o; Lade ss a Lewis ; Quynh Ngu y en ; Is ab el Po wer; Deni se Pro ul x; Sh aro n Whee le ha n; Pat ric ia
Herre ra; Caro l Hen riq ue s; Lin da Ch ris tn er; Rit a Pro bs t; Pat ric ia Jo hn so n; Loi s Mo rto n; Sh aro n B owe rs ; Hen rie tt a Eat m an ; Sh aro n M ur do ck ; M il dr ed W at le y ; Dela y ne W ha rto n; Pat ric ia Trot m an ; Gl ad y s B at es ; Hel en Co ur tn ey ; M y rtl e W hi te -Ro y es ; Ca ro l Pe te rs on ; El en a Bar no vi cs ; Vi ct or ia Ell em an ; El eft he ria

Karam ih al is ; Li nd a L. Jac ks on ; Gl ad y s F. Br en t; Mary Rob in so n; Mart ha Farr;
Eli za Taylor ; Ro se Ru sh -Gas wirt h; Arde ll R. Mart in ez; Caro l A. Mo ran ; Lo u Ann e Bo x; Barb ara L. Ku ik ah i; Eli zab et h A. Par ks -Mc Don al d; W il li e Will ia m s; Cl ara Yar bo ro ug h

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Pfi zer, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

W as hi ng to n Leg al Fo un da ti on ; Am eri can Tort Refo rm Ass oc ia ti on ; M is so ur i Org an iz at io n o f Defen se Lawy ers ; Ch am be r of Co m m erce of t he Uni te d S ta te s o f
Am eri ca; Ph arm aceu ti cal Res earc h a nd Man uf act ur ers of Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el la nt (s

)Nati on al Co ns um er Law Cen te r; Na ti on al Ass oc ia ti on of C on su m er Ad vo cat es ; Pu bl ic Ju st ic e; Am eri can Ass oc ia ti on for Ju st ic e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el le e(s

)

__ __ __ __ __ __
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: Apri l 5 , 20 17
Fil ed : M ay

1, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , ARNOLD and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

ARNOLD, Circu it Ju dg e.

Elai ne Ro bi ns on is on e o f 64 wom en fro m 29 st at es who su ed Pfi zer in a
Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t, as se rti ng st at e-l aw cl ai m s th at aro se fro m Pfi zer's m an uf act ur e

an d sa le of t h e d ru g Lip it or , whi ch th ey al le ge cau se s di ab et es

. Pfi zer rem ov ed th e

cas e to fed eral d i s t r i c t co ur t, m ai nt ai ni ng th at th e cas e la y wit hi n it s di ve rs it y 1
juri sd ic ti on ev en th ou gh th e face of t he co m pl ai nt rev eal ed th at si x o f th e pl ai nt iff s

are ci ti zen s of N e w Y or k whe re Pfi zer is al so a ci ti zen

. Co m pl et e di ve rs it y of

ci ti zen sh ip

, an d th us fed eral su b ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on , th eref or e ap pe ared to be

la ck in g. Se e Hub ba rd v. Fed er at ed Mut

. In s. C o

. , 7 9 9 F.3 d 12 24

, 12 27 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ). Bu t P f

i z e r de fen de d th e rem ov al by ur gi ng th e di st ric t co ur t to ig no re th e pl ai nt iff s who are no t Mi ss ou ri ci ti zen s whe n r u l i n g o n th e di ve rs it y is su e be cau se
th os e pl ai nt iff

s ha d be en frau du le nt ly joi ne d or pr oc ed ur al ly m is jo i n ed in th e cas e.

The Hon or ab le Caro l E. Ja ck so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-I n s u pp or t, Pfi zer co nt en de d th at th os e pl ai nt iff s co ul d no t acq ui re pe rs on al
juri sd ic ti on ov er Pfize r in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t for in ci de nt s th at di d no t aris e ou t of

or rel at e to Pfi zer's co nt act s in Mi ss ou ri, an d so co m pl et e di ve rs it y of ci ti zen sh ip di d

ex is t af te r al l.

The pl ai nt iff

s as ke d t he di st ric t co ur t t o re m an d t he cas e to st at e co ur t an d t o
award th em co st s and at to rn ey 's fees un de r 28 U.S.C. § 14 47 (c), argu in g th at Pfi zer
ha d rem ov ed th e cas e "i n ba d fai th an d

. . . on ly to de la y th e ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce

an d was te th e Co ur t's ti m e an d res ou rces " an d ha d en ga ge d in a "p at te rn of pr oc ed ur al

ab us e an d co nt in ue d di sr eg ard fo r bi n d i n g Eig ht h Ci rcu it pr eced en t an d, m or e
i mp o r ta nt ly th e ti m e an d res ou rces of th is Dis tri ct ." The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d t h e

m ot io n to rem an d, bu t, m or e im po rta nt fo r pr es en t pu rp os es , it award ed th e pl ai nt iff s $6 2 0 0 o f th ei r req ue st ed $1 4,8 00 in at to rn ey 's fees

. In do in g so , th e di st ric t jud ge

no te d th at se ve ral cas es in he r di st ric t, so m e of whi ch in vo lv ed Pfi zer as a de fen da nt

, ha d al read y reject ed th e co nt en ti on s th at Pfi zer ad va nc ed to jus ti fy rem ov in g th e cas e.

So

, th e co ur t co nc lu de d, "[i ]n li gh t of th es e rep eat ed ad m on is hm en ts an d rem an ds to

st at e co ur t fo r s i x ye a r s , de fen da nt can no lo ng er arg ue th at it s as se rte d ba si s fo r

se ek in g re m ov al to fed eral co ur t i n t he se cir cu m st an ces is ob jecti ve ly reaso na bl e."

W e do no t or di na r i l y h a v e oc cas io n to ru le on th e pr op rie ty of di st ric t co ur t

rem an d or de rs be cau se th ey are no t rev ie wab le on ap pe al or ot he rwis e. Se e 28 U.S.C.
§ 14 47 (d ). Part ie s can , ho wev er, ap pe al an or de r a w a r d i n g at to rn ey 's fees fo r
im pr op er rem ov al un de r § 14 47 (c), se e Gar bi e v. Dai mler Ch ry sl er Co rp

. , 21 1 F .3d

40 7, 41 0 (7 th Ci r. 20 00 ), whi ch pr ov id es th at a rem an d or de r "m ay req ui re pa y m en t

of jus t co st s an d an y act ua l ex pe ns es , in cl ud in g at to rn ey fees

, in cu rred as a res ul t of

th e rem ov al ." The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at th es e ap p eal s tu rn on whe th er th e

rem ov in g pa rty ha d an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le ba si s fo r rem ov in g th e cas e. Mar ti n v.

Fra nk li n Ca pi ta l Co rp

. , 54 6 U.S. 13 2, 13 6 (2 00 5)

. Pfi zer ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's

or de r award in g at to rn ey 's fees an d m ai nt ai ns th at it s rem ov al was in fact ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le

. As pa rt of ou r co ns id erat io n of w h et he r rem ov al was ob jecti ve ly

-3

-reas on ab le

, Pfi zer an d se ve ral am ic i cu ria e req ue st th at we ad dr es s Pfi zer's arg um en ts

fo r rem ov al to he lp lo wer co ur ts (p art ic ul arl y in th e East ern Dis tri ct o f M i s s ou ri)

res ol ve rem ov al is su es be cau se m an y si m il ar ph arm aceu ti cal act io ns ha ve be en fil ed

an d wil l ot he rwis e co nt in ue to be fil ed in th e Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t in vo lv ed he re.
Pf i z er an d th es e am ic i m ai nt ai n th at a de ci si on on th e di ve rs it y -juri sd ic ti on is su e

co ul d he lp en d, as on e am ic us pu ts it

, th e "h ub of li ti ga ti on to ur is m " th at th e Mi ss ou ri

st at e co ur t h as be co m e.

A f te r Pfi zer fil ed it s no ti ce of ap pe al

, th e pl ai nt iff s fil ed a sa ti sf

a c t i o n o f
jud gm en t in th e di st ric t co ur t as se rti ng t h a t t h e y "d is cl ai m ed an y in te res t in

co ll ect in g" th e at to rn ey 's fee award an d th at " f u l l an d co m

pl et e sa ti sf

act io n of sa id
jud gm en t or or de r is he reb y ack no wled ge d." The y th en fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s th e

ap pe al as m oo t, wh ic h P fiz er o pp os ed

.

Pfi zer co nt en ds th at we sh ou ld de ny th e m ot io n t o d is m is s be cau se th e pl ai n t iff s fil ed it to o la te

. Our ru le s pr ov id e th at

, "Ex cep t fo r go od cau se or on th e

m ot io n of th e co ur t, a m ot io n to di sm is s ba se d on juri sd ic ti on m us t be fil ed wit hi n 14

da y s aft er th e co ur t ha s do ck e t e d t h e ap pe al ." 8t h Ci r. R. 47 A(b ). Alt ho ug h th e pl ai nt iff s di d no t m ov e to di sm is s th e ap pe al un ti l 20 da y s aft er it was do ck et ed

, th e

cas e di d no t pr es en t a m oo tn es s is su e un ti l th ey fil ed th e sa ti sf act io n of jud gm en t, an d

t h e y f i l e d th ei r m ot io n to di sm is s on ly si x da y s aft er th at

. W e th in k th at in th es e
ci rcu m st an ces th e pl ai nt iff s ha d go od cau se fo r fil in g th e m ot io n to di sm is s m or e th an

14 da y s af

te r do ck et in g. M or e im

po rta nt , reg ard le ss of o ur Ru le 47 A(b ), we can no t

de ci de a m oo t ca se . So we t ur n t o t he m eri ts of t he m ot io n.

Und er Arti cl e III, an act ua l co nt ro ve rs y m us t ex is t at al l st ag es of rev ie w, an d

if i nt erv en in g c irc um st an ces m oo t th e co nt ro ve rs y , th e cas e m us t b e d is m is se d. Se e
C amp be ll -Ewa ld Co

. v. Gomez

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 66 3, 66 9 (2 01 6)

. A cas e be co m es m oo t

whe n i t b eco m es im

po ss ib le for th e co ur t t o g ran t an y effe ct ua l re li ef. Se e id

.

-4

-Fo r th e reas on s th at fo ll ow, we feel co ns tra in ed to ag ree wit h th e pl ai nt iff s th at

th e fil in g of th e sa ti sf

act io n of jud gm en t ha s m oo te d th e ap pe al . We c a n n o t r el ie ve
Pfi zer of an ob li ga ti on to pa y th e fee award be cau se th at ob li ga ti on ha s al read y be en

ex ti ng ui sh ed

, an d we can no t or de r th e pl ai nt iff s to refu nd th e f

e e a ward be cau se
Pfi zer ha s no t pa id it

. It fo ll ows th at al l th e co ur t can do at th is po in t is gi ve Pfi zer an
ad vi so ry op in io n on th e pr op rie ty of it s rem ov al

, an d it go e s w i th ou t sa y in g th at

ad vi so ry op in io ns are no t wit hi n ou r Arti cl e III po wer. Se e Gre en man v. Jes se n , 78 7

F.3 d 8 82 , 89 1 (8 th Cir . 20 15 ).

Rel y in g on Perk in s v. Gen er al Mot or s C o rp

. , 96 5 F.2 d 59 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ),

Pfi zer in si st s th at th e pl ai nt iff s' di sc la im er of th e award do es no t m oo t th e cas e
be cau se th e m ere ex is te nc e of th e or de r ap pe al ed fro m ha rm ed Pfi zer's rep ut at io n. In

Perk in s , a pa rty an d her at to rn ey ap pe al ed a di st ric t cou rt o rd er re fu si ng to va cat e a

sa nc ti on s or de r an d al so so ug ht a writ of m an da m us or de rin g th e di st ric t co ur t to li ft

th e sa nc ti on s. The ap pe ll an ts arg ue d th at th e di st ric t co ur t lo st juri sd ic ti on to en fo rce
th e or de r whe n th e pa rti es se tt le d th e cas e, bu t we reject ed th at co n t e n t i o n e v en
th ou g h

, a s pa rt of th e pa rti es ' se tt le m en t, th e ap pe ll ee ha d ag reed no t to co ll ect th e

m on et ary sa nc ti on s. W e ex pl ai ne d th at

, th ou gh th e ap pe ll ee m ov ed fo r sa nc ti on s, "i t

was th e di st ri c t co ur t th at im po se d th em

. App el la nt s are en ti tl ed to ba rg ai n wit h

ad ve rs ari es to dr op a m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s, bu t th ey can no t un il at eral ly ba rg ai n away
th e co ur t's di sc ret io n in im po si ng sa nc ti on s an d th e pu b l i c ' s i n te res t in en su rin g

co m pl ia nc e wit h t he rul es of p ro ced ur e." Id

. at 5 99 –6 00

.

W e co nc lu de th at Perk in s is be si de th e po in t be cau se we do no t be li ev e th at th e
di st ric t co ur t's award of at to rn ey 's fees in th is ci rcu m st an ce can reas on ab ly be cal le d

a sa nc ti on or co ul d ha ve di sc ern ib ly ha rme d P f i z er's rep ut at io n. Alt ho ug h th e pl ai nt iff s' rat he r vi vi d m ot io n fo r fees co nt ai ne d a lo t of accu sa to ry la ng ua ge di rect ed

at Pfi zer an d m ai nt ai ne d th at Pfi zer ha d en ga ge d in sa nc ti on ab le co nd uc t, we th in k

it is im po rta nt th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ta ke th e ba it : The co ur t's or de r m erel y
he ld , a pp lying Mar ti n , t ha t Pfi zer's rem ov al was no t o bjec ti ve ly reaso na bl e in li gh t

-5

-of rep eat ed ad m on it io ns in si m il ar cas es in vo lv in g si m il ar is su es

. Th i s i s no t m uc h

of a reb uk e, ba rel y m or e th an a st at em en t th at Pfi zer ha d si m pl y erre d as a m at te r of

la w.

Pfi zer m ai nt ai ns th at ev ery at to rn ey 's fee award un de r § 14 47 (c) is a sa nc ti on

cap ab le o f h a r mi n g a pa rty's rep ut at io n. Tha t arg um en t is un te na bl e. The st at ut e is

ne ut ral wit h r e sp ect to a pa rty's be ha vi or ; it do es no t rem ot el y su gg es t th at ev ery

at to rn ey 's fee award un de r § 14 47 (c) can be de sc rib ed as a sa nc ti on or th at th e pa rty

rem ov in g th e cas e ha s act ed in a rep reh en si bl e way . Th e Su pr em e Co ur t mo r e th an
in ti m at ed as m

uc h in Mar ti n , whe re it co n s i s t en tl y refe rred to th is po rti on of
§ 14 47 (c) as a "fe e-s hi fti ng " st a t u t e

. 5 4 6 U.S. at 13 9– 40

. In de ci di ng whe n a co ur t

sh ou ld award at to rn ey 's fees un de r § 14 47 (c), m or eo ve r, th e Mar ti n Co ur t ex pr es sl y reject ed t h e p ro po si ti on th at fees sh ou ld be award ed on ly whe n th e rem ov al was
"fr iv ol ou s, un reas on ab le

, or wit ho ut fo un da ti on ." Id

. at 13 8– 39

. Had it ad op te d th at

st an da rd

, we m ig ht be m or e in cl in ed to sa y th at an at to rn ey 's fee award un de r § 14 47 (c) is cat eg or i c a l l y a sa nc ti on , bu t in st ead th e Mar ti n Co ur t ad op te d a m uc h

m or e an od y ne st an d a rd

. At le as t on e ot he r co ur t ha s ex pr es sl y he ld

, we th in k

co rrec tl y , th at § 14 47 (c) is no t a sa nc ti on s ru le bu t m erel y a fee- sh ift in g st at ut e. Se e
Gar bi e , 21 1 F .3d at 4 10

.

Pfi zer al so di rect s ou r at te nt io n to a cas e in whi ch we de ci de d th at a ba nk ru pt cy

co ur t ha d sa nc ti on ed a pa rty w h e n i t s a i d in an or de r th at th e pa rty ha d vi ol at ed an

au to m at ic st at ut or y st ay

. Se e U.S. Th ro ug h Far mer s Home Admi n. v. Nel

son , 969 F. 2d

62 6, 62 9 (8t h Cir. 1 99 2) . W e ex pl ai ne d th at "an ad jud ic at io n th at th e [p art y ] was in

vi ol at io n of fed eral la w is in de ed a sa nc ti on , an d on e th at th e [p art y ] sh ou ld be

pe rm it te d to se ek to rev ers e on ap pe al ," ev en whe re no m on et ary pe na lt ie s wer e a t

is su e. Id

. Bu t un li ke Nel so n , t he di st ric t co ur t he re di d no t fin d th at th ere was a

v i o l a t i o n of fed eral la w; it m erel y fo un d th at th e rem ov al was no t ob jecti ve l y

reas on ab le

. Nel

so n is th eref

or e in ap po si te

. Pfi zer in ad di ti on po in ts to oc cas io ns on
whi ch ou r co ur t ha s refe rred to at to rn ey 's fee award s un de r § 14 47 (c) as "s an ct io ns ."

-6

-Se e Dak

ot a, Min n. & E. R.R. C or

p. v. Sc hi ef

fe r , 7 15 F.3 d 71 2, 71 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 );

Jo hn so n v. AGCO Co rp

. , 15 9 F.3 d 11 14

, 11 16 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). Bu t th es e cas es are far

fro m ho ld in g th at al l at to rn ey 's fee award s un de r § 14 47 (c) are sa nc ti on s, es pe ci al ly

si nc e th e pr op er ch a r act eri zat io n of § 14 47 (c) award s was no t act ua ll y at is su e in

th os e cas es . W e th in k t ha t s om e at to rn ey 's fee award s un de r § 14 47 (c) are n ot tru ly

sa nc ti on s th at co ul d ha rm a pa rty's rep ut at io n, an d we th in k th at th e award he re is on e
of th em

.

Pfi zer al so in si st s th at it ha s su ffer ed an in jury be cau se t h e or de r at is su e
di sc ou rag es it fro m rem ov in g cas es in th e fu tu re si nc e a di st ric t cou rt m ig ht no w be

m or e in cl in ed to award at to rn ey 's fees fo r an un reas on ab le rem ov al

. Pfi zer's arg um en t

fai ls be cau se we do no t th in k th at th e ch il li n g effe ct Pfi zer po si ts wil l m at eri al iz e
si nc e Pfi zer wou ld ge t an ot he r ch an ce of ge t ti ng an op in io n on th e pr op rie ty of

si m il ar rem ov al s sh ou ld a di st ric t co ur t award a t t o r n e y's fees ag ai n. And in a cas e
whe re at to rn ey 's fees are act ua ll y at is su e on ap pe al

, Pfi zer co ul d rece iv e a ru li ng on
th e pr op rie ty of rem ov al th at it no w so earn es tl y se ek s. The in cen ti ve s are curre nt ly

st ru ct ur ed so th at pl ai nt iff s' at to rn ey s in t h e s e t yp e s of cas es wil l no lo ng er as k fo r

at to rn ey 's fees f

o r f e a r t h at a ph arm aceu ti cal co m pa ny li ke Pfi zer wil l ap pe al a fee

award an d rece iv e a de ci si on th at m ig ht en d th ei r lu crat iv e pr oc ed ur al st rat eg y

. And

Pfi zer wil l ha ve li tt le di ffi cu lt y wit h be in g or de red to pa y rel at iv el y m od es t at to rn ey 's

fee award s if th at gi ve s it th e op po rtu ni ty t o de feat th e pl ai nt if f s ' st rat eg y fo r go od

. W e th eref

or e reject Pfi zer's co nt en ti on th at it wil l be di sc ou rag ed fro m rem ov in g

cas es in th e fu tu re; it is act ua ll y m or e li ke ly to rem ov e a cas e in th e fu tu re bas ed on
th es e in cen ti ve s. In su m , th is cas e is m oo t be cau se we can no t pr ov id e Pfi zer an y rel ie f

ou ts id e o f an ad vi so ry

op in io n.

Onc e a cas e pe nd in g ap pe al be c o mes m oo t, fed eral ap pe ll at e co ur ts m ay
di sp os e of th e c a se as jus ti ce m ay req ui re. Se e U.S. Ban co rp Mor tg

. Co

. v. Bon ne r
Mal l P'shi

p , 51 3 U.S. 18

, 21 –2 2 (19 94 ). The es ta bl is he d pra ct ic e of fed eral ap pe al s

co ur ts is to va cat e th e jud gm en t or or de r be in g ap pe al ed be cau se th at "cl ears th e pa th

-7

-fo r fu tu re rel it ig at io n of th e is su e s b e t w een th e pa rti es an d el im in at es a jud gm en t."

Id

. at 22

. Tho ug h co ur ts are so m et im es rel uc ta nt to va cat e a jud gm en t or or de r be in g

ap pe al ed whe n on e or m or e of th e pa rti es cau se d th e cas e to be co m e m oo t, se e id

. at

23

, th os e co nc ern s are no t pr es en t whe n th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty be lo w un il at eral ly m oo ts

th e cas e. Oth erwi se th e pr e v a i l in g pa rty co ul d so li di fy a de ci si on as pr eced en t or

crea te a pr ecl us iv e eff

ect wit ho ut th at de ci si on be in g s ub jecte d to ap pe ll at e rev ie w.
Se e 13 C Ch arl es Alan W rig ht et al

., Fed eral Prac ti ce & Pro ced ur e § 35 33 .10 .1 (3 d ed

. 20 08 ). Giv en th at an or de r of va cat ur is th e us ua l co ur se , th at al l pa rti es ag ree th at

va cat ur is pr op er, an d th at va cat ur wou ld go a lo ng way to ward rep ai rin g an y po ss ib le

ha rm th at Pfi zer cl ai m s it su ffer ed

, we va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r di rect in g Pfi zer

to pa y att or ne y 's fe es

.

Dis m is se d.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-