Case: 18-80059, 05/18/2018, ID: 10894053, DktEntry: 3-1, Page 1 of 92 No. 18-_______ United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit IN RE : LIPITOR , JCCP 4761 ALIDA ADAMYAN , et al.,* Plaintiffs-Respondents , v. PFIZER INC ., Defendant-Petitioner . Petition for Permission to Appeal From United States District Court, Central District of California, Hon. Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Case No. 2:18-cv-01725-CJC (JPRx) PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1453( C) Mark S. Cheffo Rachel B. Passaretti-Wu Mara Cusker Gonzalez Lincoln Davis Wilson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 (212) 849 -7000 Counsel for Defendant-Petitioner Pfizer Inc. *Full list of Plaintiffs-Respondents set forth in Addendum. Case: 18-80059, 05/18/2018, ID: 10894053, DktEntry: 3-1, Page 2 of 92 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Defendant-Petitioner Pfizer Inc. hereby states that it has no parent corporation and there is no publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock. Dated: May 18, 2018 /s/ Mark S. Cheffo Mark S. Cheffo Attorney for Defendant-Petitioner Pfizer Inc. Case: 18-80059, 05/18/2018, ID: 10894053, DktEntry: 3-1, Page 3 of 92 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... v QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................................................ 1 RELIEF SOUGHT ..................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................... 2 A. Pfizer Removes the California Lipitor Cases ......................... 3 B. The District Court Remands the Cases .................................. 3 C. On Remand, Plaintiffs Avoid Seeking Coordination .............. 4 D. California Courts Request Coordination Sua Sponte ............ 5 E. The District Court Again Remands the Cases ....................... 7 REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW .................................................... 8 I. THIS PETITION PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT CAFA ISSUE THAT THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY DEEMED WORTHY OF REVIEW ............. 8 A. The Court Should Review Whether a State Court May Propose Joint Trial Within the Meaning of CAFA ............... 10 1. Review Should Be Granted to Decide the Question Left Open by Alexander ............................................... 10 2. The Statutory Language Supports Removal Based on Sua Sponte State-Court Proposals ......................... 11 3. The District Court Erred in Categorically Holding That a Court Cannot Make a Proposal ........................ 14 iii Case: 18-80059, 05/18/2018, ID: 10894053, DktEntry: 3-1, Page 4 of 92 4. The “Master of the Complaint” Principle Does Not Apply ............................................................................ 16 B. A Proposal to Join the Lipitor Coordination Is a Proposal for Joint Trial, No Matter the Source .................... 18 II. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT REVIEW ............................. 20 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 22 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ................................................... 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................. 24 iv Case: 18-80059, 05/18/2018, ID: 10894053, DktEntry: 3-1, Page 5 of 92 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abrams v. Pfizer Inc. , 17-80094 (9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017) .......................................................... 4 Alexander v. Bayer Corp. , 2016 WL 6678917 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016) ......................... 1, 9, 10, 16 Briggs v. Merck Sharp & Dohme , 796 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................... passim Bullard v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co. , 535 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2008) .......................................................... 19, 20 Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain , 616 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 13 Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc. , 627 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................... 9, 20, 21 Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain , 503 U.S. 249 (1992) .............................................................................. 11 Corber v. Xanodyne Pharms., Inc. , 771 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................... passim Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens , 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) ........................................................................ 9, 15 Dean v. United States , 556 U.S. 568 (2009) .............................................................................. 12 Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 17 Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 11 Cal. App. 5th 626 (2017) .................................................................. 20 v Case: 18-80059, 05/18/2018, ID: 10894053, DktEntry: 3-1, Page 6 of 92 Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC , 781 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015) .......................................................... 9, 12 Koral v. Boeing Co. , 628 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2011) ................................................................ 11 Olivier Plantation, LLC v. St. Bernard Parish , 744 F. Supp. 2d 575 (E.D. La. 2010) ............................................... 17-18 Parson v. Johnson & Johnson , 749 F.3d 879 (10th Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 11 In re Pfizer , 2017 WL 2257635 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2017) ................................ passim Russello v. United States , 464 U.S. 16 (1983) ................................................................................ 12 Scimone v. Carnival Corp. , 720 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 11 Security Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters , 124 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................ 17 Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles , 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) ............................................................................ 9 Syed v. M-I, LLC , 853 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 13 Tanoh v. Dow. Chem. Co. , 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................... 1, 10, 13 TRW v. Andrews , 534 U.S. 19 (2001) ................................................................................ 13 Watson v. United States , 552 U.S. 74 (2007) ................................................................................ 12 Wilson v. Drake , 87 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................ 17 vi Case: 18-80059, 05/18/2018, ID: 10894053, DktEntry: 3-1, Page 7 of 92 Statutory Authorities 28 U.S.C. § 1332 .............................................................................. passim 28 U.S.C. § 1346 ...................................................................................... 17 28 U.S.C. § 1442 ...................................................................................... 17 28 U.S.C. § 1447 ........................................................................................ 9 28 U.S.C. § 1452 ...................................................................................... 17 28 U.S.C. § 1453 .............................................................................. 1, 9, 21 28 U.S.C. § 2679 ...................................................................................... 17 Cal. Code Civ. P. § 404.1 ........................................................................... 5 Cal. Code Civ. P. § 404.4 ..................................................................... 6, 15 Rules and Regulations Cal. R. Ct. 3.544 ...................................................................................... 16 Fed. R. App. P. 5 ....................................................................................... 1 Additional Authorities Black’s Law Dictionary (online) (2 nd ed.) ............................................ 8, 14 vii Case: 18-80059, 05/18/2018, ID: 10894053, DktEntry: 3-1, Page 8 of 92 Pursuant to FRAP 5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c), Defendant-Petitioner Pfizer Inc. requests leave to appeal the May 10, 2018 Order of the Central District of California (Carney, J.) remanding this coordinated proceeding of more than 4,300 Plaintiffs to state court (“Remand Order,” Ex. A). QUESTION PRESENTED This Petition presents the following question: can a state court’s sua sponte request that claims be added to a California coordinated proceeding trigger removal under the mass action provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)? This Court has previously determined that where plaintiffs make such a request, the claims are “proposed to be tried jointly” and thus removable as a mass action. Corber v. Xanodyne Pharms., Inc. , 771 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Last year, this Court granted review in Alexander v. Bayer , 17-55828, to decide a related question it raised in two prior cases: whether “a proposal by a state court for a joint trial would qualify as a ‘proposal’” under CAFA. Briggs v. Merck Sharp & Dohme , 796 F.3d 1038, 1048 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added); Tanoh v. Dow. Chem. Co. , 561 F.3d 945, 956 (9th Cir. 2009). However, Alexander was dismissed by agreement before a decision. This Petition presents