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.