Rasmussen v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-06947
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rasmussen v. Safeway, Judge Illston granted plaintiffs’ application, remanded six actions to state court, and denied other pending motions as moot.
The six plaintiff groups and the named defendants in the related actions were affected because the cases were returned to state court. The companies that removed the cases were also affected because the court ruled that their removals were improper.
What happened
In Rasmussen v. Safeway, plaintiffs asked the court to strike the notices removing six cases from state court and to send the cases back. The cases had been removed by several companies that were mentioned in the complaints but were not listed as defendants.
The removing companies said they had been improperly identified as unknown “Doe” defendants. The court explained that only named defendants may remove a case under the federal removal statute, and that Doe defendants are limited to people or entities whose identities are unknown to the plaintiff. Because the removing companies were not named defendants, the court found that removal was improper.
The court granted the combined application and remanded all six actions to the state courts from which they were removed. It denied all other pending motions as moot. Judge Susan Illston issued the order.
The detailed version
- Rasmussen v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-06947
- Susan Illston
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
The court addressed six related cases that had been removed from state court. The plaintiffs filed combined applications asking the court to strike the notices of removal and remand the cases to state court. The removing entities were Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation; GlaxoSmithKline LLC; Pfizer Inc.; Sanofi US Services, Inc.; and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC.
The removing entities based removal on diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that they were not named as defendants in the complaints, although the complaints mentioned them in factual allegations. Their notices of removal said that they had been improperly and incorrectly named as “Doe Defendants.”
Court’s reasoning
For removal based on diversity jurisdiction, the party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that removal is proper. The court also noted that any doubt about the right to remove must be resolved against federal jurisdiction.
The federal removal statute permits a civil action to be removed by “the defendant or the defendants.” The court found that the removing entities were not the named defendants. It also relied on the rule that Doe pleading is limited to unknown potential defendants. Because the removing entities were identified and were not named defendants, the court concluded that they could not be the Doe defendants and that removal was improper.
Ruling
Judge Susan Illston granted the plaintiffs’ combined ex parte applications and remanded the six actions to the state courts from which they had been removed. The court denied all other pending motions as moot.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.