United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' second motion
to remand the action to state court (Doc. No. 11). For the
reasons set forth below, the motion shall be granted.
first filed this action in the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis, Missouri, on February 27, 2012, seeking damages
for injuries sustained as a result of the use of the
antipsychotic drug Risperdal. The 72 Plaintiffs reside in
multiple states, including Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey. 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 Defendant Patriot Pharmaceuticals, LLC, is
a citizen of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
April 13, 2017, Defendants first removed this action to this
Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
See Reese v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., No.
4:17-CV-01317-SPM (ECF No. 1, Apr. 13, 2017). The Court found
that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking and remanded the
case on May 11, 2017. Reese v. Janssen Pharm., Inc.,
No. 4:17-CV-01317-SPM, 2017 WL 1954635 (May 11, 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 Plaintiffs' claims.
basis for their second removal primarily rests with 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.
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 proceedings 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.” See 28 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 the ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
qualifies as orders and/or other papers because it changed
the legal landscape by clarifying that specific jurisdiction
over the non-Missouri Plaintiffs does not exist and thus
triggers a new 30-day period for removal under Section
the orders and other paper exception is predominantly limited
to orders and other paper issued in the individual case that
is being removed. Orders and rulings in separate cases with
different parties do not trigger the recommencement of the
30-day 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. 4:17-CV-1996-SNLJ, 2017
WL 4280635, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2017) (“This
Court is required to remand this action to state court under
28 U.S.C. § 1446 because the second notice of removal
(#1) was not filed within thirty days of defendants receiving
a copy of the original state court filing, and no
“order or other paper” triggered a new removal
period.”); Dotson v. Bayer Corp., No.
4:17-CV-1986-RWS (ECF No. 50, Nov. 17, 2017); Tabor v.
Bayer Corp., No. 4:17-CV-1997-RWS (ECF No. 49, Nov. 17,
2017); Robb v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:17-CV-01995-RLW
(ECF No. 52, Nov. 27, 2017); Hall v. Bayer Corp.,
No. 4:17-CV-01999-JCH, ECF No. 58, Nov. 27, 2017).
result, Defendants' removal of this matter for a second
time was procedurally improper because Bristol-Myers
Squibb does not constitute “other paper.”
Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand this action to state court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs'
Second Motion to Remand  is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is
REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the
Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis, State of
IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions in
this case are DENIED ...