Source: https://casetext.com/case/rubel-v-pfizer-inc
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 13:22:22
Document Index: 365099534

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 1441', '§ 1441', '§ 1332', '§ 1447', '§ 1447', '§ 2071', '§ 1447', '§ 2071', '§ 2071']

Rubel v. Pfizer Inc., 361 F.3d 1016 | Casetext
Rubel v. Pfizer Inc.
Fields v. Jay Henges Enterprises, Inc.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Id. § 1441. See also Rubel v. Pfizer Inc., 361 F.3d 1016, 1017 (7th Cir. 2004);…
In 2004, the Court of Appeals cast doubt on the rule's validity. See Rubel v. Pfizer Inc., 361 F.3d 1016,…
Full title:Janet RUBEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PFIZER INC. and Warner-Lambert…
Date published: Mar 24, 2004
361 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2004)
explaining that the "the cost to the defendant of complying with an injunction counts toward the jurisdictional minimum"
Summary of this case from Republic Bank v. Kucan
Kristi L. Browne, argued, Walner Associates, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert B. Ellis, argued, Kirkland Ellis, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellants.
Defendants removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), alleging that the district court would have had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The parties are of diverse citizenship (Rubel is a citizen of Illinois; the defendants are incorporated in Delaware and have their principal places of business in New York), and the notice of removal asserted that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. That is a plausible position, quite apart from any doubt about the potential for disgorgement and punitive damages, given this circuit's rule that the cost to the defendant of complying with an injunction counts toward the jurisdictional minimum. See In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 123 F.3d 599, 609 (7th Cir. 1997). Sales of Neurontin exceed $1 billion annually, and an injunction curtailing the size of the market could be quite costly to the defendants (though the record does not show what portion of all prescriptions are for off-label uses). But the defendants did not attempt to quantify the losses to which disgorgement or an injunction would expose them. Nor did they comply with the Northern District of Illinois's Local Rule 81.2(a), which provides:
(A) a response by such plaintiff to an interrogatory or interrogatories ( see Ill.S.Ct. Rule 213) as to the amount in controversy, either (i) stating that the damages actually sought by that plaintiff exceed the jurisdictional amounts or (ii) declining to agree that the damage award to that plaintiff will in no event exceed the jurisdictional amount; or
(B) an admission by such plaintiff in response to a request for admissions ( see Ill.S.Ct. Rule 216(a)), or a showing as to the deemed admission by such plaintiff by reason of plaintiff's failure to serve a timely denial to such a request ( see Ill.S.Ct. Rule 216(c)), in either event conforming to the statement or declination to agree described in subparagraph (2)(A) of this rule.
Although this rule initially requires removing parties to submit not only the defendants' statement (subsection (1)) but also at least one plaintiff's acknowledgment (subsection (2)), the final sentence of the trailing unnumbered paragraph implies that either will suffice. Thus even if no plaintiff will concede that the stakes exceed $75,000 or refuse to accept a cap on recovery — neither option is helpful when removal is based on the cost to the defendant of an injunction or other equitable relief — a defendant can satisfy the rule by supplying "a statement by each of the defendants . . . that it is his, her or its good faith belief that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount". Because neither Pfizer nor Warner-Lambert has made such a representation — and did not offer any other evidence about the stakes, such as an affidavit estimating the cost of an injunction against off-label uses — the district court found that subject-matter jurisdiction had not been established and remanded the proceeding to state court. 276 F.Supp.2d 904, 907-09 (N.D.Ill. 2003).
The problem with this position is that the district court did not remand the proceeding as a sanction for failure to comply with a local rule. Judge Gettleman, no less than the defendants, knows that § 1447(c) does not mention local rules. Local Rule 81.2(a) itself says that the remand is "for failure to establish a basis of federal jurisdiction." The rule is designed to elicit information that will enable the district court to determine whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. If the removing party does not supply vital information, then a remand follows — because it is the defendant, as the proponent of federal jurisdiction, who bears the risk of nonpersuasion. When the papers filed in the district court do not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, remand is obligatory; and appellate review of a remand based on the lack of federal jurisdiction is securely blocked by § 1447(d). See, e.g., Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439, 52 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977), in addition to the language we have quoted from Things Remembered. See also Adkins v. Illinois Central R.R., 326 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2003).
If a district judge were to construe Local Rule 81.2(a) in a way that conditioned removal on plaintiff's acknowledgment that the stakes exceed $75,000 — i.e., if the court were to understand the rule to require defendants to satisfy both subsection (1) and subsection (2) — that would call its validity into serious question. Removal is proper if the defendant's estimate of the stakes is plausible; plaintiffs can't prevent removal by refusing to concede that the controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum or by insisting that injunctions do not count toward the amount in controversy. See The Barbers, Hairstyling for Men Women, Inc. v. Bishop, 132 F.3d 1203 (7th Cir. 1997); Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1993). Because all local rules must be consistent with federal statutes, see 28 U.S.C. § 2071(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. 83(a)(1), a rule blocking the defendants from making an independent estimate of the amount in controversy, or from relying on the costs of equitable relief, could not be enforced. But the district court did not use Local Rule 81.2(a) in that fashion — and, even if it had done so, appeal would not be a remedy given § 1447(d). Pfizer and Warner-Lambert can ask the Supreme Court of the United States for review if they are ultimately unsuccessful in state court. In the meantime, the validity of Local Rule 81.2 may come before this court in some other case in which the judge declines to remand and enters judgment on the merits adverse to plaintiff, who argues on appeal that the case should have been litigated in state court. The validity of Local Rule 81.2 also could be considered by the Judicial Council of this circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2071(c)(1). Although the Northern District of Illinois promulgated Local Rule 81.2 in 1997, it did not then comply with § 2071(d) by presenting the new rule to the Council for review. It did include Local Rule 81.2 in a package of rules submitted to the Council in September 1999. Although the Circuit Executive asked the Northern District for further information on May 15, 2000, that court never responded, so the validity of this rule has yet to be evaluated by the Judicial Council. None of these considerations affects appellate jurisdiction, however, so although some questions about Local Rule 81.2 remain unanswered, this appeal is
In Rubel our Court of Appeals cast doubt on the validity of the detailed LR 81.2(a) requirements in a situation in which the asserted amount in controversy is dependent on the plausibility of a defendant's estimate of the stakes, as with a prayer for injunctive relief (361 F.3d at 1020). Rather than wrestle with further fine tuning, our District Court repealed the version quoted in Rubel.
Summary of this case from Fultz v. Target Corp.
In Rubel v. Pfizer, Inc., 361 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit announced: "removal is proper if the defendant's estimate of the stakes is plausible; plaintiffs can't prevent removal by refusing to concede that the controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. "
Summary of this case from Sargent v. Cassens Corporation
observing that courts cannot make local rules that condition removal on discovery responses and thus "block . . . defendants from making an independent estimate of the amount in controversy."
Summary of this case from Fields v. Jay Henges Enterprises, Inc.
In Rubel, although the Seventh Circuit was without jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court's reman decision, the court made general observations about the application of the local rule and the necessary proof of the amount in controversy upon removal.
Summary of this case from Lapree v. Prudential Financial