Perfetti v. Connecticut Orthopaedic Specialists, PC

Background

Silvia Perfetti originally brought the action in the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut against Connecticut Orthopaedic Specialists, PC, Phillip A. Minotti, and Howmedica Osteonics Corp., doing business as Stryker Orthopaedics. The lawsuit arose from an allegedly defective ABG II Modular Hip Stem, a hip-replacement component involved in the multidistrict litigation pending before the District of Minnesota.

Perfetti asserted claims including negligence, negligence per se, strict liability for design, manufacturing, and failure-to-warn defects, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of merchantability, and punitive damages. The complaint’s claims against the healthcare defendants focused on allegedly inadequate monitoring, diagnosis, warnings, and treatment after surgery. The claims against Howmedica focused on the device’s design, manufacture, labeling, and sale.

Howmedica removed the case to federal court on January 20, 2023, citing diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred the case to the hip-implant multidistrict litigation. Perfetti moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that complete diversity was lacking.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that federal courts must remand a removed case if they lack subject-matter jurisdiction. The party supporting removal bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists, and doubts about removal generally are resolved in favor of remand.

The complaint appeared to show incomplete diversity because the healthcare defendants were based in Connecticut, like Perfetti according to her argument. Howmedica relied on fraudulent misjoinder. That doctrine may allow a federal court to retain a case when a plaintiff joins a nondiverse party whose claims have no real connection to the claims supporting federal jurisdiction. The court noted that the Eighth Circuit had not formally adopted or rejected the doctrine, although the District of Minnesota had applied it in similar cases.

The court found that the healthcare defendants were improperly joined under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The medical-negligence claims would require evidence about Perfetti’s care, treatment, and services from the healthcare defendants and their staff. The claims against Howmedica would require evidence about the development, manufacture, testing, knowledge, warnings, and disclosures concerning the hip-replacement device. The court concluded that these claims did not involve common questions of law or fact and did not arise from the same transaction or series of transactions. It also found that liability for one group of defendants would not establish liability for the other, although separate liability could be found.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part Perfetti’s motion to remand. As to Connecticut Orthopaedic Specialists, PC and Phillip A. Minotti, the court granted the motion, severed all claims against them, and remanded those claims to the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven. As to Howmedica Osteonics Corp., the court denied the motion and retained jurisdiction over all claims against it. The court also stated that, given the age and status of the multidistrict litigation, the parties’ interests would be served by attempting to settle the matter.