Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri; May 14, 2014; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Kimberly Hensley initiated a legal action on January 17, 2014, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, against multiple pharmaceutical defendants, including GSK LLC and the Forest Defendants, regarding her minor child K.H.'s congenital birth defects allegedly linked to the ingestion of the drugs Lexapro and Paxil during pregnancy. Hensley, a resident of Indiana, seeks recovery for medical expenses and punitive damages. GSK LLC, a Delaware citizen, filed a Notice of Removal to federal court on January 31, 2014, claiming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the forum-defendant rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) did not apply since the Forest Defendants had not yet been served. Hensley subsequently filed a Motion to Remand on February 24, 2014, alongside an agreed motion to stay proceedings on GSK LLC's Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by the Court. GSK LLC opposed the remand motion on March 6, 2014, and Hensley replied on March 14, 2014. The Forest Defendants later filed their Answers to Hensley’s Complaint. The excerpt underscores the limited jurisdiction of federal courts as dictated by constitutional and statutory provisions.
A federal court's actions are void if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, necessitating a strict adherence to jurisdictional requirements during removal from state to federal court. A claim can only be removed if it meets the diversity and amount in controversy criteria under 28 U.S.C. 1332 or presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. 1331. The burden of proof for establishing jurisdiction lies with the party invoking it. Removal statutes are strictly interpreted to protect states' rights, and any ambiguities are resolved in favor of remand. The plaintiff maintains control over the claim, and if a federal court finds it lacks jurisdiction at any time before final judgment, the case must be remanded to the state court.
In her Motion to Remand, the plaintiff seeks to return the case to the Circuit Court for the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County, Missouri, arguing that the removal by GSK LLC violates the 'forum-defendant rule' under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2). This rule prevents removal when a defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was filed. The plaintiff contends that none of the defendants, including the forum defendant Forest Pharmaceuticals, were served when GSK filed for removal, as the state court had not issued summons for service. She cites several cases from the Eastern District of Missouri supporting her argument that pre-service removal violates the forum-defendant rule.
Plaintiff argues that the Court previously deemed pre-service removal through electronic docket monitoring as indicative of forum shopping rather than protecting a defendant from improper joinder. GSK LLC counters that the cited cases are not relevant, as they involved only Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals, while GSK LLC is a distinct third defendant associated with a different product. GSK LLC claims the Plaintiff's strategy is to prevent it from removing the case to federal court despite being eligible to do so, asserting that the connection between the medications is coincidental. GSK LLC emphasizes that it did not become aware of the case until two weeks after the Plaintiff filed it, distinguishing itself from the defendants in previous cases who acted more swiftly. GSK LLC cites various cases supporting its position that an unserved forum defendant does not inhibit removal, arguing that its actions align with the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). However, the Court finds GSK LLC’s arguments unpersuasive, noting that the Eighth Circuit recognizes exceptions to strict adherence to statutory language when it contradicts the intent of the drafters. The Court concludes that following the plain language of the statute in this case would produce an outcome contrary to legislative intent.
The Court previously ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over a removal action involving a forum defendant, emphasizing that the non-forum defendant's pre-service removal contradicted the purposes of removal and the forum-defendant rule. In the cited case of *Perez*, a non-forum defendant filed a Notice of Removal based on diversity of citizenship shortly after the plaintiffs initiated a products liability action, but before any defendant was served. The Court underscored that diversity jurisdiction is designed to protect nonresident defendants from potential bias in state courts, a concern that does not apply when the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
The Court highlighted conflicting interpretations within different circuits and districts regarding the "properly joined and served" language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Some courts read the statute to allow removal if the forum defendant has not been served, while others, including this Court, have maintained that allowing removal without service on the forum defendant undermines the removal statute's purpose. The Court noted that even among those allowing removal under certain conditions, at least one defendant must be served.
In this case, GSK LLC's actions were deemed "egregious" as they filed for removal before service was completed, indicating an intention to circumvent the forum-defendant rule. The Court concluded that adherence to the statutory language in this context would violate the legislative intent, resulting in a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, ordering the case be returned to the Circuit Court for the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County, Missouri.
