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' Motion to
Remand, filed August 1, 2017. (ECF No. 17). By way of
background, Plaintiffs filed this action in Missouri state
court on April 10, 2015, claiming personal injuries resulting
from the design, marketing, and selling of the drug products
Risperdal and/or Invega. The eighteen Plaintiffs are citizens
of a number of states, including Missouri, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and New York.
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 and New Jersey. Defendant Reed Elsevier, Inc.,
f/k/a Excerpta Medica, Inc., is a citizen of New
19, 2017, more than two years after this case was filed in
State court, Defendants removed it on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1 3 3 2, a s s e r t i n g
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
Plaintiffs' claims. Defendants' impetus for 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).
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 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 from this
Court, Jordan v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:17CV865 CEJ
(E.D. Mo. July 14, 2017), and Siegfried v. Boehringer
Ingelheim Paramceuticals, Inc., No. 4:16CV1942 CDP (E.D.
Mo. June 27, 2017), in which the claims of the non-resident
plaintiffs were dismissed based on the Bristol-Myers
decision. Notably, Jordan and
Siegfried, did not involve the issue of removal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), as does the instant
legal ground for their removal of this case over two years
after it was commenced 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. §
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 was procedurally improper, and the Court will
grant Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand this case to state
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis, State of Missouri.
 According to the July 2017 Notice of
Removal, Reed Elsevier, Inc., was named as a Defendant in the
First Amended Complaint and was voluntarily dismissed by
Plaintiffs in April 2017. (ECF No. 1 at 9). The Second
Amended Complaint, which was filed on July 20, 2017, names
Reed Elsevier as a Defendant. (ECF No. 8-1).
 There is currently a motion for
reconsideration pending in Jor ...