United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
move to dismiss the claims of ninety-six Plaintiffs named in
this case for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2). Because Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
show that I have personal jurisdiction regarding the claims
of non-Missouri Plaintiffs, I will grant Defendants'
motion to dismiss. The remaining Plaintiffs are completely
diverse from the Defendants, and Defendants' removal was
timely. As a result, I will deny Plaintiffs' motion to
filed this personal injury case on February 28, 2019 in the
City of St. Louis Circuit Court, alleging that they
experienced “extreme pain, discomfort, urinary problems
and dyspareunia” due to vaginal mesh
“manufactured, marketed, advertised and promoted by
Defendants.” (ECF No. 7 at 4-33, 45). For each of the
ninety-nine individuals, Plaintiffs state their place of
residence, when the mesh was implanted, and their alleged
injuries resulting from the mesh. Three of these Plaintiffs
allegedly reside in Missouri, while the other ninety-six
Plaintiffs reside in New Jersey, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan,
New Hampshire, Arizona, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, and Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs do not allege that the
ninety-six non-Missouri Plaintiffs were injured by actions
taken in Missouri.
move to dismiss the claims of non-Missouri plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs move to remand this case based on lack of
diversity between New Jersey Plaintiffs and Defendants.
Plaintiffs also argue that the Defendants' removal was
untimely. Both motions are fully briefed.
ruling on a motion to dismiss, I must accept as true all
factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hager v. Ark.
Dept. of Health, 735 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2013). To
defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.
Epps v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 327 F.3d 642,
647 (8th Cir. 2003). At this stage, Plaintiffs carry the
burden of proof “and the burden does not shift to the
party challenging jurisdiction.” Id.
not have diversity jurisdiction over a case unless all
plaintiffs are completely diverse from all defendants.
OnePoint Sols., LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346
(8th Cir. 2007). However, I may determine a threshold issue
of personal jurisdiction if it is “simple when compared
with the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Crawford v. F. Hoffman La Roche, 267 F.3d 760, 764
(8th Cir. 2001).
argue that I do not have personal jurisdiction over
ninety-six non-Missouri Plaintiffs, pursuant to Daimler
AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) and Bristol-Myers
Squibb v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773
(2017). As articulated in Daimler and
Bristol-Meyers, a court must have either
“general” or “specific” jurisdiction
over all parties. A court has general jurisdiction over a
corporation if it is “fairly regarded as at home”
in the forum. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117,
137 (2014). A corporation's principal place of business
or place of incorporation will satisfy this test.
Id. at 138. However, “a corporation's
‘continuous activity of some sorts within a
state'” will not. Daimler AG v. Bauman,
571 U.S. 117, 132 (2014) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v.
State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. &
Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 318 (1945).
a court has specific jurisdiction over a defendant if the
suit “arises out of or relates to the [D]efendant's
contact with the forum.” Daimler AG v. Bauman,
571 U.S. 117, 126 (2014). If a suit does not satisfy this
condition, “specific jurisdiction is lacking.”
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773,
1781, (2017). “[A] defendant's unconnected
activities in the State” cannot establish specific
general, “[a] court faced with more than one
jurisdictional issue may decide these jurisdictional
questions in any order.” In Re AFY, 734 F.3d
810, 816 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens
for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 100 n.3 (1998)). A
court without subject matter jurisdiction may not dismiss a
case on the merits. Crawford v. F. Hoffman La Roche,
267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001). However, a court may
determine a “threshold issue, such as personal
jurisdiction . . . without a finding of subject-matter
jurisdiction, [if] the threshold issue is simple when
compared with the issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id. After Bristol-Myers Squibb,
“judges in [the Eastern District of Missouri] have
generally held that the issue of personal jurisdiction is
more straightforward than subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Moore v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:18 CV 262 CDP, 2018 WL
4144795, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 29, 2018) (collecting cases).
carefully reviewing the Plaintiffs' complaint and the
parties' briefings on these issues, I find that the issue
of personal jurisdiction is straightforward in this case. The
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint contains no
allegations demonstrating a connection between the ninety-six