In re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Litigation; Ruiz v. Philips, et al.

Summary

The court denied Philips’ motion to remand-related relief based on fraudulent misjoinder and rejected its alternative request to sever claims against a nondiverse physician. The court concluded that the negligent failure-to-warn claims against the physician shared a real connection and common questions of fact and law with the product-liability claims against Philips, and that Philips failed to meet its heavy burden to establish fraudulent misjoinder.

Holdings

1. Rasic was not fraudulently misjoined because Ruiz's negligent failure-to-warn claim against Rasic shared a real connection and common questions of fact and law with her failure-to-warn and products-liability claims against Philips.
2. Severance was not warranted, even assuming the court had authority under Rule 21 to sever a nondiverse party from a removed case in order to create diversity jurisdiction.
3. The federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Ruiz and Rasic were both California citizens and Rasic was neither fraudulently joined nor fraudulently misjoined.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rasic was fraudulently misjoined with Philips under the fraudulent-misjoinder doctrine so that his California citizenship could be disregarded for diversity-jurisdiction purposes.
2. Whether the court should sever Ruiz's claims against Rasic under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and retain the claims against Philips in federal court.
3. Whether the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction after determining that Rasic was not fraudulently misjoined.

Disposition

remanded