Manown v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-07266
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Manown v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Judge Illston remanded fourteen cases because nonparty entities lacked authority to remove them.
Plaintiffs and defendants in the fourteen related cases were affected: the cases were returned to the state courts from which they had been removed, and other pending motions were denied as moot.
What happened
In Manown v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., plaintiffs in fourteen related cases asked the federal court to send their cases back to state court. The cases had been removed by entities that were not named as defendants.
The removing entities claimed they had been incorrectly identified as unknown “Doe” defendants and relied on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs argued that the entities had no authority to remove the cases, and no opposition was filed.
Judge Susan Illston granted the combined application and remanded the cases to the state courts from which they were removed. She also denied all other pending motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Manown v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-07266
- Susan Illston
- Nov. 12, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs in fourteen related cases filed a combined application asking the court to remand, or return, the cases to state court. The cases had been removed from state court by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi US Services, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC. Those entities asserted diversity jurisdiction and stated that they had been improperly or incorrectly named as unknown “Doe” defendants. The entities were not named as defendants in the complaints, although the complaints mentioned them in factual allegations.
The court noted that the party seeking removal generally has the burden of proving that removal is proper. Under the federal removal statute, a civil action may be removed by the defendant or defendants. The court also explained that a “Doe” designation is used for a potential defendant whose identity is unknown to the plaintiff. Because the removing entities were not named defendants and could not be the unknown Doe defendants, the court concluded that removal was improper.
Ruling
Judge Susan Illston granted the plaintiffs’ combined ex parte application and remanded all fourteen actions to the state courts from which they had been removed. The court denied all other pending motions as moot. The opinion states that no opposition to the remand application was filed.
Effect
The order returned these fourteen cases to state court and resolved the federal court’s involvement based on improper removal. It did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.