(Dechert)\Pfizer Petition.Wpd

$(Dechert)\Pfizer Petition.Wpd$ No. ______ In the Supreme Court of the United States __________________ PFIZER, INC., Petitioner, v. ALIDA ADAMYAN, et al., Respondents. __________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit __________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI __________________ SHEILA L. BIRNBAUM MICHAEL H. MCGINLEY MARK S. CHEFFO Counsel of Record RACHEL B. PASSARETTI-WU DECHERT LLP LINCOLN DAVIS WILSON 1900 K Street, NW DECHERT LLP Washington, DC 20006 Three Bryant Park (202) 261-3300 1095 Sixth Avenue [email protected] New York, NY 10036 Counsel for Petitioner June 21, 2019 Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 QUESTION PRESENTED This Petition presents an important, unsettled, and recurring question concerning the “mass action” provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Under CAFA, a removable “mass action” is a minimally diverse civil action in which the monetary claims of 100 or more persons are “proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11). The courts of appeals are divided as to whether a sua sponte proposal by a state court—as opposed to a proposal by plaintiffs—can trigger mass action removal. Here, Pfizer removed these cases involving more than 4,200 products liability plaintiffs following a California state court’s “Request” to coordinate them all before a single trial judge. But the district court remanded the litigation to state court based on its view that a state court’s proposal for joint trial cannot trigger removal under CAFA, and the Ninth Circuit declined to correct the district court’s misreading of the statute. The question presented is whether a state court’s proposal to try jointly the claims of more than 100 plaintiffs can qualify for “mass action” removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11). ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner Pfizer Inc. was defendant in the district court and petitioner before the Ninth Circuit. The 4,287 Respondents (set forth by name in the Addendum of Parties) were plaintiffs in the district court and respondents before the Ninth Circuit. iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pfizer Inc. is a publicly traded company. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED.................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING.............. ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT..... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................. viii PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ........ 1 OPINIONS BELOW..........................2 JURISDICTION............................. 2 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED........ 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................. 4 A.CAFA’s Mass Action Removal Provision.... 4 B. The California Lipitor Diabetes Litigation . 7 C. Pfizer’s Second Mass Action Removal Based On The Court’s Proposal to Try the Claims Jointly.............................. 10 D.The Ninth Circuit’s Decision.............12 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION . 13 I. This Court Should Grant Review To Decide Whether A State Court’s Proposal To Try More Than A Hundred Claims Jointly Is A Removable Mass Action............................. 14 A. This Petition Presents An Important And Recurring Question That Has Divided The Lower Courts......................... 14 v B. This Court Can And Should Review Summary Denials Of CAFA Review As To Important, Unsettled, And Recurrent CAFA Questions............................ 19 II. This Court Should Grant Review To Vindicate CAFA’s Plain Text And Purpose............ 23 CONCLUSION.............................29 ADDENDUM OF PARTIES APPENDIX Appendix A Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Adamyan, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 18- 80059 (August 22, 2018) .............App. 1 Appendix B Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in the United States District Court Central District of California, In re: Lipitor, No. 2:18-cv-01725 (May 10, 2018)................App. 2 Appendix C Order Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Adamyan, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 18- 80059 (January 22, 2019) ...........App. 16 Appendix D Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Abrams, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. (November 17, 2017)..........App. 18 vi Appendix E Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in the United States District Court Central District of California, In re: Pfizer, No. 8:17-mc-00005 (May 23, 2017)...............App. 29 Appendix FReporter’s Transcript of Status Conference in the United States District Court Central District of California, In re: Pfizer, No. 8:17-mc-00005 (February 1, 2017) ...........App. 59 Appendix G Case Management Order No. 87 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, In re: Lipitor, MDL No. 2:14-mn-02502 (November 7, 2016)...........App. 73 Appendix H Transcript of Motion Hearing in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, In re: Lipitor, No. 2:14-mn- 02502 (October 21, 2016)............App. 95 Appendix I Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, In Re: Pfizer, No. 17- 80094 (June 2, 2017) ..............App. 154 vii Appendix J Notice of Removal in the United States District Court Central District of California, In re: Lipitor, JCCP 4761, No. 2:18-cv-1725 (March 1, 2018) .............App. 185 Appendix KPetition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, In Re: Lipitor, JCCP 4761, No. 18-80059 (May 18, 2018)..............App. 203 Appendix L Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, In Re: Lipitor, JCCP 4761, No. 18-80059 (September 5, 2018) .........App. 233 Appendix MRequest That Coordination Trial Judge Include in this Coordinated Proceeding Certain Cases Sharing Common Questions of Fact and Law in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, In Re: Lipitor, JCCP 4761 (November 17, 2017).........App. 259 Appendix N Court Order RE Add-On Cases in the in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, In Re: Lipitor, JCCP 4761 (December 15, 2017) .........App. 268 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES In re Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 698 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2012)........... 6, 17, 18 Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008)....................... 24 Anderson v. Bayer Corp., 610 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2010).............. 7, 15 Atwell v. Boston Scientific Corp., 740 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 2013)............. 6, 18 BP America, Inc. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 613 F.3d 1029 (10th Cir. 2010).............. 18 Briggs v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, 796 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2015).......... 7, 16, 27 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ............ 8 Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 627 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2010)......... 19, 20, 21 College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 585 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2009) ........... 19, 20, 21 Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992)....................... 24 Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 771 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2014).......... 6, 10, 18 ix Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 730 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2013).............. 22 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014).................. passim Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009)....................... 24 Ferrar v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., 2015 WL 5996357 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 14, 2015) . 16 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019)................ 5, 23, 25 J.B. ex rel. Benjamin v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2012 WL 1655980 (N.D. Ill. May 9, 2012) . 16, 17 Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018)...................... 25 Koral v. Boeing Co., 628 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2011)..... 7, 15, 16, 23, 26 Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 879 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2018).............. 6, 18 In re Lipitor Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litig., 892 F.3d 624 (4th Cir. 2018)................. 8 Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161 (2014)................ 5, 6, 23, 28 Parson v. Johnson & Johnson, 749 F.3d 879 (10th Cir. 2014)............. 7, 15 x Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983)........................ 25 Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2013).......... 7, 15, 25 Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013)................... passim TRW, Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001)........................ 25 Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009).............. 7, 16 Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 (2007)........................ 24 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1254 ............................. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ........................ passim 28 U.S.C. § 1346 ............................ 28 28 U.S.C. § 1442 ............................ 28 28 U.S.C. § 1447 ............................ 19 28 U.S.C. § 1452 ............................ 28 28 U.S.C. § 1453 ........................ passim 28 U.S.C. § 2679 ............................ 28 CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 404.1 .................. 9 CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 404.4 ................. 27 xi OTHER AUTHORITIES Cal. R. Ct. 3.544............................ 27 Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, § 2(b)(2), 119 Stat. 5 (2005)....... 4, 5 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.3.....................13, 22 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11....................13, 22 S. REP. NO. 109-14 (2005).................. 19, 20 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) permits defendants to remove “mass actions” where “monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.” 28 U.S.C.

Load more