United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
C. Hamilton UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Second Motion
to Remand, filed August 2, 2017. (ECF No. 14). By way of
background, Plaintiffs filed this action in Missouri state
court, claiming personal injuries resulting from the design,
development, testing, labeling, packaging, distribution,
marketing, and selling of the drug products Risperdal and/or
Invega. The eighty Plaintiffs are citizens of a number of
states, including Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
purposes of this case, Defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., is a citizen of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Defendant
Johnson & Johnson is a citizen of New Jersey. Defendant
Janssen Research & Development, LLC, is a citizen of
Pennsylvania. Defendant Patriot Pharmaceuticals, LLC, is a
citizen of Pennsylvania.
first removed this case on April 12, 2017, based on diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). T h e Court
found that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking, and
remanded the case on May 3, 2017. On July 19, 2017,
Defendants removed this case for a second time, asserting
that all of the non-Missouri Plaintiffs should be dismissed
from the case, and that the Court's diversity
jurisdiction then would apply to the remaining Missouri
impetus for this second removal was the United States Supreme
Court's ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137
S.Ct. 1773 (2017). In that case, the Supreme Court held that
state courts lack specific jurisdiction over nonresident
plaintiffs' claims that have no connection to the forum
where the lawsuit is filed, even if those plaintiffs join
their claims with in-state plaintiffs. In addition,
Defendants cite cases three cases from this Court, Jordan
v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:17CV865 CEJ (E.D. Mo. July 14,
2017), Turner v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., No. 4:17CV1525 AGF (E.D Mo. Aug. 3, 2017), and
Siegfried v. Boehringer Ingelheim Paramceuticals,
Inc., No. 4:16CV1942 CDP (E.D. Mo. June 27, 2017), in
which the claims of non-resident plaintiffs were dismissed
based on the Bristol-Myers decision. These cases did
not involve removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
legal ground for their second attempt to remove this case is
the changed circumstances exception to the time limitation
for removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Under that
statute, a case must be removed within 30 days “after
the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise,
of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for
relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or
within 30 days after the service of summons upon the
defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in
court and is not required to be served on the defendant,
whichever period is shorter.” S e e 2 8 U.S. C
. § 1446(b)(1). When an initial pleading is not
removable, “a notice of removal may be filed within 30
days after receipt by the defendant, through service or
otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or
other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the
case is one which is or has become removable.” 28
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
assert that because they changed the legal landscape, by
making clear that specific jurisdiction over the non-Missouri
Plaintiffs does not exist, the ruling in
Bristol-Myers qualifies as an order and/or other
paper, and thus triggers a new 30-day period for removal
under section 1446(b)(3). The orders and other paper
exception is predominately limited to orders and other paper
issued in the individual case that is being removed, however.
Orders and rulings in separate cases with different parties
do not trigger the recommencement of the 30-day time limit.
See Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965,
969 (8th Cir. 2007) (“If Congress had
intended new developments in the law to trigger the
recommencement of the thirty day time limit, it could have
easily added language making it clear that § 1446(b) was
not only addressing developments within a case.”);
Erhart v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:17CV1996 SNLJ (ECF No.
49, Sept. 27, 2017). As a result, Defendants' removal of
this matter for a second time was procedurally improper, and
the Court will grant Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Remand
this case to state court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs'
Second Motion to Remand (ECF No. 14) is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis, State of Missouri.
 There is currently a motion for
reconsideration pending in Jor ...