UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 12, 2012
CLEO FLAUTA, ET AL.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Wendy Hernandez Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present None Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL
FOR IMPROPER JOINDER
On October 3, 2012, multiple Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Janssen Research & Development, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") alleging claims for injuries Plaintiffs say they suffered after ingesting the drug Levaquin, which was sold by Defendants. See Compl. On October 23, 2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court. In their notice of removal, Defendants allege that some of the Plaintiffs-specifically, the Plaintiffs from New Jersey and Pennsylvania-were fraudulently joined.
There are over 900 named Plaintiffs in the Complaint. The Complaint does not contain class allegations or a statement that Plaintiffs are properly joined. It does not appear that Plaintiffs have asserted a right to relief "arising out of the same transaction and occurrence," see Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 378 (providing that joinder is proper in California state courts when plaintiffs assert a right "arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences" and "if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action"). Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing no later than January 7, 2013 why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice on the grounds of improper joinder of parties. Mandatory chambers copies are to be delivered to Chambers. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action.
The Court further orders Plaintiffs promptly to serve this minute order on any defendant who has been served with the complaint, or who is served before the date specified above.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.