Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1889
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:12-cv-01804)
Argued:
Decided:
CANNADA, PLLC,
Incorporated and
KELLY, TROTTER,
Appellee Dignity
of
her
motion
to
remand
to
California
state
court,
I.
On December 29, 2003, Flores underwent surgery at St. Mary
Medical
Center
in
Long
Beach,
California
to
implant
in
her
Genito-Urinary
Medical
Group,
Inc.
(GLBG),
to
treat
infections,
hematuria,
and
necrosis
which
she
alleges
resulted
from
the
erosion
March
14,
2012,
of
the
mesh
into
adjacent
pelvic
organs.
On
Flores
initiated
this
action
in
the
Floress
products
consortium.
to
the
liability,
raises
breach
of
claims
of
warranty,
negligence,
and
loss
of
Central
California
complaint
District
defendants
of
were
California
fraudulently
contending
joined
and
that
the
that
the
24, 2012.
On
May
30,
2012,
the
Judicial
Panel
on
Multi-District
On October 4, 2012,
the district court entered Pretrial Order 17, requiring all MDL
plaintiffs
to
submit
an
abbreviated
Plaintiff
Profile
Form
(PPF)
containing
preliminary
interrogatory
responses,
terms
were
agreed
upon
by
lead
counsel
Order 17,
for
the
MDL
first
procedures.
resorting
to
[this
Orders]
moved
to
dismiss
Floress
she
was
reasonably
denied
Flores
case
with
prejudice
for
concerned
cure
J.A. 281.
deficiency
that
filing
the
PPF
would
motion
to
remand,
holding
that
the
On May
Floress
case
without
prejudice
for
her
ongoing
the dismissal and reinstate her action which the district court
II.
We
review
questions
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction
de
Id.
is necessary.
review
for
abuse
of
discretion
the
imposition
of
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Rabb v. Amatex Corp., 769 F.2d 996, 9991000 (4th Cir. 1985).
motion
for
abuse
of
Robinson
v.
Wix
Filtration
A district court
or
commits
an
error
of
law.
United
States
v.
III.
The district court denied remand on the ground that the
California
Center,
defendants,
were
possibility
Scheuer,
fraudulently
that
Flores
joined
could
she
alleged
and
St.
because
prevail
GLBG,
on
any
Mary
there
of
Medical
was
her
no
claims
cognizable
claim
against
the
California
for
jurisdictional
purposes,
the
citizenship
of
the
jurisdiction.
nondiverse
defendants,
and
thereby
retain
To establish that a
establish
either:
[t]hat
there
is
no
possibility
that
the
fraud
in
the
plaintiff's
pleading
of
jurisdictional
facts.
removing
party
must
show
that
the
plaintiff
cannot
to
look
propriety of removal.
beyond
the
complaint
to
determine
the
any
means
available.
(emphasis
added)).
While
the
vast
cases
of
legal
impossibility,
that
analysis
produces
the
in
designing,
manufacturing,
marketing,
labeling,
J.A. 32.
The
appeal,
negligent
complaint
and
was
failure
never
to
warn,
argued
is
not
alleged
before
the
district
in
the
court.
necessary
elements
of
that
theory,
that
the
Flores
was
unreasonable,
in
even
conclusory
manner.
See
there
are
no
factual
allegations
in
the
complaint
factual
basis
in
the
record
for
Flores
to
make
such
Appellants
Br. 25 4, 28 5.
Contrary
to
pleading state.
Floress
assertion,
California
is
fact
(Cal.
2007).
Unlike
in
notice
pleading
state,
when
Id.
Therefore on the
IV.
Flores also appeals the district courts dismissal of her
case without prejudice in accordance with Case Management Order
17. 7
the
Order
by
filing
PPF.
She
argues
that
she
was
This
argument is meritless.
Flores
because
contends
she
constitute
was
an
that
reasonably
affirmative
right to remand.
she
did
not
concerned
act
that
comply
with
the
Order
that
doing
so
would
would
deprive
the
jurisdiction.
of
her
her
district
Her
motion
courts
for
exercise
remand
rested
personal
entirely
on
an
that
the
jurisdiction.
district
court
therefore
lacked
subject-matter
[n]o
action
of
the
parties
can
confer
subject-matter
F.3d 413, 416 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Ins. Corp. of Ireland,
Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702
(1982)).
Because
any
reasonable
diligence
on
Floress
part
would have revealed that her concern was unfounded, her refusal
to comply with Order 17 was willful and unreasonable.
Moreover,
40
days
after
it
denied
Floress
motion
to
remand.
district
court
did
not
abuse
its
discretion
by
V.
Finally, Flores appeals the district courts denial of her
motion for reconsideration of its dismissal. 10
unsupported,
conclusory
requirements
of
Federal
assertions
Rule
of
that
Civil
she
satisfied
Procedure
59(e)
the
by
The district
VI.
For the foregoing reasons, the district courts denial of
Floress
prejudice,
motion
to
remand,
and
denial
of
her
dismissal
motion
of
for
her
case
without
reconsideration
and
reinstatement are
AFFIRMED.
10
prejudice
as
sanction
for
Plaintiffs
refusal
to
had remedied the discovery defect, which was the sole basis for
dismissal.
the
district
court
observed
that
the
applicable
statute
district
court
recognized
that
denial
of
the
of
Thus,
motion
to
would
motion
reverse
to
the
reinstate
district
the
courts
action.
denial
Because
of
I
Plaintiffs
believe
that
15
I.
As the majority notes, Plaintiffs Dawn and Alfred Flores
initiated this action in California after Mrs. Flores developed
pelvic
infections,
hematuria,
and
necrosis
following
surgical
[J.A. 27]
throughout
debilitating
J.A.
37.
actions
the
Mrs.
injuries
caused
Plaintiffs
case
pending
against
Flores
by
the
is
one
Ethicon
in
sustained
synthetic
of
severe
mesh
thousands
of
multi-district
and
device. 1
similar
litigation
removal
to
federal
court
and
transfer
of
the
courts
multi-district
pretrial
litigation
order
(Order
plaintiffs
17)
to
requiring
submit
all
five-page
[J.A. 286-94]
must
submit
with
the
completed
[Plaintiff
Profile
dismissal
Plaintiffs
asserted
of
the
that
case.
they
had
J.A.
no
292.
objections
In
response,
to
filing
[J.A. 296]
consideration
of
the
motions,
the
district
court
the
motion
to
J.A. 371.
dismiss
to
the
Ethicon
seeks
17
J.A. 371.
The
[J.A. 412]
A Plaintiff
upon
the
information
and
medical
authorizations
[J.A. 281]
submitted
the
Plaintiff
Fact
Sheet,
Plaintiffs
of
dismissal
and
reinstatement
of
the
case.
[J.A. 372]
advised
district
the
court
that
the
applicable
statute
of
limitations likely barred refiling and that unless the case was
reinstated, the [d]ismissal [o]rder may turn out to be exactly
what the [c]ourt did not intenda dismissal with prejudice.
J.A.
379.
Plaintiffs
argued
that
such
sanction
was
to
Ethicon. 3
In
opposing
Plaintiffs
Rule
59(e)
had
received
acknowledged,
Plaintiffs
was
more
Plaintiff
extensive
Fact
Sheet,
disclosure
which,
than
it
the
J.A. 413.
Ethicon
its
the
previous
district
ruling
court
dismissing
denied
the
case
Plaintiffs
without
motion
for
[J.A. 431]
As to
result
of
strategic
decisions
made
by
the
plaintiffs
J.A. 438.
faith
by
findings
regarding
Plaintiffs
Ethicon.
or
prejudice
to
II.
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the
district court to impose a variety of sanctions upon parties who
fail to comply with a discovery order, including dismissing the
action or proceeding in whole or in part[.]
37(b)(2)(A)(v).
However,
the
20
power
to
Fed. R. Civ. P.
dismiss
case
is
delays
must
be
weighed
the
Dove v. CODESCO,
sound
public
policy
of
Thus, while a
the
action
without
decision
on
the
merits.
non-complying
omitted).
This
is
party].)
because
(quotation
the
courts
marks
and
interest
in
footnotes
judicial
(4th
Cir.
1989)
(reviewing
21
sanction
of
default
judgment
373
(4th
Cir.
2013)
(cautioning
22
that,
although
courts
possess
the
inherent
power
to
dismiss
case,
orders
of
level
that
is
utterly
inconsistent
with
the
orderly
own errors, sparing the parties and the appellate courts the
burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.
Am. Natl Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)
(quotation marks omitted).
59(e)
motion
to
prevent
injustice.
See
EEOC
v.
We review the
See
BearingPoint,
(holding
Inc.,
that
the
Matrix
576
Capital
F.3d
district
172,
court
Mgmt.
192-96
abused
Fund,
(4th
its
L.P.
Cir.
v.
2009)
discretion
in
of
complaint).
dismissal
with
prejudice
and
allow
an
amended
See James
III.
In this case, the district courts denial of Plaintiffs
motion
for
reconsideration
and
reinstatement
is
flawed
on
several fronts.
the
balancing
multi-factor
test
before
effectually
dismissing
In denying reinstatement of
reinstatement
would
likely
end
the
case
and
thus
ultimately
district
earlier
order
of
dismissal
without
to
statute
of
limitations).
And,
of
course,
had
the
[a]
court
must
consider
four
factors
before
recognizing
reconsideration
justify
court
the
dismissal,
severity
made
prejudice
of
no
to
the
of
findings
Ethicon,
the
finality
the
of
court
sanction
made
order
no
imposed.
indicating
bad
the
for
need
its
faith
attempt
The
by
to
district
Plaintiffs,
deterrence,
denying
or
the
on
required
to
critical
address
in
issues
which
determining
the
District
whether
to
Court
grant
was
default
and
callous
disregard
for
the
authority
of
the
Hillig,
does
the
record
reflect
such
callous
disregard.
any
prejudice
arising
from
Plaintiffs
initial
Ethicon
had
been
deprived
any
opportunity
is
inapposite,
however,
because
to
consider
J.A. 413.
Plaintiffs
This
submitted
the Plaintiff Fact Sheet, which is the very document that would
have been required had they been selected to participate in the
discovery pool.
district
particularly
courts
baffling
refusal
given
its
to
reinstate
previous
the
case
decision
is
denying
district
court
explicitly
rejected
Ethicons
argument
in
J.A. 371.
as
Plaintiff
Profile
dismissal,
sanction
Form.
Plaintiffs
for
Plaintiffs
Immediately
fully
complied
failure
following
with
to
file
the
their
the
courts
discovery
of
the
information
required
under
Order
17.
Yet
when
defect
that
prompted
dismissal--the
district
court
refused.
Why would the district court, having determined that there
was insufficient evidence to dismiss the case with prejudice at
a time when Plaintiffs discovery remained outstanding, refuse
to reinstate the case once the discovery had been served?
27
What
did the district court mean when it dismissed the case without
prejudice?
Nothing
occurred
between
the
dismissal
without
unanswered
questions
are
especially
concerning
in
dismissal
lay
with
plaintiffs counsel.
strategic
J.A. 438.
decisions
made
by
the
the
court
should
first
carefully
consider
the
unjustly
penalizes
blameless
client
for
the
attorneys
Hillig,
916
F.2d
courts
at
174-75
refusal
to
(quotation
marks
reinstate
the
omitted).
case
The
district
in
manifest
results
the
requisite
Because
nothing
in
showing
this
case
of
bad
faith
indicates
or
prejudice.
that
Plaintiffs
otherwise
undermine[d]
the
integrity
of
the
[judicial]
process, Projects Mgmt., 734 F.3d at 373, I would hold that the
district
court
abused
its
discretion
in
denying
29
Plaintiffs
Accordingly, I