Preview
e | @ cA
KATHLEEN M. RHOADS (SBN: 144466)
krhoads@grsm.com
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP AL FILED
3 Park Center Drive, Suite 200 OUNTY
Sacramento, CA 95825 a
Telephone: (916) 830-6511 FEB 1 6 2021
Facsimile: (916) 920-4402
-
Attorneys for Defendants By__{UF )
MN
TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, LLC; TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC* TEWA
ND
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.; and
COOPERSURGICAL, INC.
eo
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
oO
10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
1] YESSENIA PADILLA, ) CASE NO. RG20084360
LLP
12
)
Plaintiff,
200
)
Mansukhani,
) NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF
95825
Suite
13 vs. REMOVAL TO USS. DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
Drive,
14 )
CA
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC.; DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.; )
Sacramento,
Scully
15 TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, LLC: )
Center
TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL) Complaint filed December 21, 2020
16 PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; )
Rees
Park
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC. and )
17 COOPERSURGICAL, INC., ;
Gordon
3
18 Defendants. )
)
19
COME NOW Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Women’s Health,
20
Inc.; Teva Women’s Health, LLC; Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc.; The
21
Cooper Companies, Inc.; and CooperSurgical, Inc.,hereby to give notice, through counsel, of
22
the removal of this action from the Superior Court of Alameda County,' California, to the
23
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
24
§ 1441, et seq. A copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a
25
part thereof.
26
The above-styled action ishereby removed from this Court to the United States District
27
Court for the Northern District of California.
28
Notice of Filingof Notice of Removal toUS.
4.
DistrictCourt forthe Northern Districtof
ayer
California wd,
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that with the filing of this Notice, removal of
this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is effected
and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), no further proceedings may be had in this action.
Dated: February 12, 2021 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
WN
ss
"Kathleen MJRhoads ~
Attorneysifét Defendants
CO
Teva Women’s Health, LLC; Teva Women’s
Health, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;
oO
Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D,
10 Inc.; The Cooper Companies, Inc.; and
CooperSurgical, Inc.
11
LLP
12
200
Mansukhani,
95825
Suite
13
Drive,
14
Sacramento, CA
Scully
15
Center
16
Rees
Park
Gordon
17
3
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Notice of Filingof Notice of Removal toUS. DistrictCourt forthe Northern Districtof California
EXHIBITA
KATHLEEN M. RHOADS (SBN 144466)
krhoads@grsm.com
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
WN
3 Park Center Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Ww
Telephone: (916) 830-6511
Facsimile: (916) 920-4402
-_
Attorneys for Defendants
MN
TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, LLC; TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL
NHN
PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.; and
COOPERSURGICAL, INC.
~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CO
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
oO
10
11 YESSENIA PADILLA, CASE NO.
LLP
12 Plaintiff, JOINT NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF
200
ee
Mansukhani,
ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C.
13
95825
Suite
vs. § 1441(b)(DIVERSITY/
ee ee
14 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; FRAUDULENT JOINDER)
Drive,
CA
TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, LLC: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Sacramento,
Scully
15 TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.;
Center
TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL
16 PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; Complaint filed December 21, 2020
Rees
Park
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC., and
17 Removed from Superior Court of
Gordon
COOPERSURGICAL, INC.
Alameda County, RG20084360
3
18
19 Defendants.
ee
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-]-
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1... eeeeeeeseeeteeeeeees sssveeeesseeessnsecssnseessseessasenssesesssasenssesensees
6
II. FILING OF REMOVAL PAPERS... eeeeeee
Leveceoceesaseesssereccesoesareceosessaceeresenecseoeseneces
6
Hil. STATUTORY BASES FOR JURISDICTION 00... ceceseesceccseesceeceseseeeeseeaceeeeesseeaeeee
6
A. The Amount in Controversy Requirement is Satisfied ............cccsccssstesssesteeeeeeaes
7
NN
B. There isComplete Diversity of Citizenship.............cccccssesssesssessceceseeesecsseeteeseenes
9
“SN
C. Plaintiff Has Fraudulently Joined Coopet.............cecccsseessesseeseeseeseeesseeneessenseeseees
11
CO
IV. CONSENT TO REMOVAL Wu...ce eseceseseeseeecseeseeeeseecesceseeacseesesscseesceaceceseeseeaceeseeeseeeees
14
Oo
10 NOTICE OF REMOVAL IS TIMELY .... eee ececeessecesseceecesceseseenseseeceseeaseseseeaeeeeaeeneeseaees
14
11 VI. VENUE IS PROPER WITH THIS COURT .........cceseessessesssetceeseceeesesceeeseeescseeeeaseeeaeeeees
15
LLP
12
200
Mansukhani,
13
95825
Suite
14
Drive,
Sacramento, CA
Scully
15
Center
16
Rees
Park
17
Gordon
3
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
WN
Cases
Ww
Accord Winner Chevrolet, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.,
&h
No. 2:08-cv-00539-LKK-JFM, 2008 WL 2693741 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2008) 0... eee 13
NN
Anaya v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC,
14CV1260 L BGS, 2014 WL 2199878 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2014)... cee ceceesesseesseeseeteeeeeeees
7
DWN
Ayemou v. AMVAC Chem. Corp.,
SN
312 Fed. App’x 24 (9th Cir, 2008) .0...ccc cccccessssccesecssesseeseeseeesecesecseeensessessesssecsssesesesesseeenseess
12
Oo
Bryant v.Apotex, Inc.,
No. 1:12-CV-01377-LJO, 2012 WL 5933042 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) .....ccceeecccceseeseeeeees
9
oO
10 Campbell v. Bridgestone/Firestone. Inc..
No. CVIF-051499-FVS-DLB, 2006 WL 707291 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2006)...........ccseeseeseees
8
11
LLP
Caswell v. Olympic Pipeline Co.,
12 484 Fed. App’x 151 (9th Cir. 2012) ooo. cesseessessececeeceeeceecsseeseesseseaceacessesesenecneeeeesaeens
12
200
Mansukhani,
13
95825
Suite
Cavallini v.State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.,
44 F.3d 256 (Sth Cir. 1995) ooo cccccseesseescesseescceeceeceseessaecseecseeeaceeecsaecssecseeeneeseeeseesseeeeeeaeees
12
14
Drive,
CA
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Superior Court,
Sacramento,
Scully
15 157 Cal. App. 4th 1101, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202 (2007)... cece ceeeseesceeseeeceteceeeeceeesseeeseeseeees
13
Center
16 City of Los Angeles v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
Rees
Park
22 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2014)........daceseseseecscecesaccceseeesesececesasesssasessesessacecensseseneuesesceeree
13
17
Gordon
3
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,
18 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014)...
eecccccecesecesessseeseenseeseenseeecsseessecseseseessecsessesseeseeesesesssaueeseessesessneeenes
7
19 Delgado v. MillerCoors, LLC,
No. 2:16-cv-05241-DMG, 2016 WL 5852852 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)...
ceeeeseeereetees 12
20
Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.,
21 116 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2015) occ cecscssesscesecsecssceeeeseeseeseeseesecseeecseeseseeeeeesneeaees
13
22 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp.,
261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001) oe ceeesesteeseeenees eesecenseesseesseessecessecsaecssacesseeestecsseessaseeseenseeeues
8
23
Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp.,
24 494 F.3d 1203 (Sth Cir. 2007)...ccccccsscsssscssscsssecescesseessseessseseseeeseecsseesseesseeseecseseeeseeesesesaeeees
9
25 Hammarlund v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
No. 215CV05506SVWJEM, 2015 WL 5826780 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2,2015)...eccecceseeseeneeee 8
26
Holley v.Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.,
27 Civil Action No. 20-1613, 2020 WL 4470617 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2020)...
cccceesesseeseeseeees 9
28
-3-
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA,
582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir, 2009) oo... ceccecsssccescecceseesesscesessecsseacssecseeseeseesessecsesseeseseeeneseaeeseeeees
14
Lannes v. CBS Corp.,
No. CV 12-1876 PA (AJWX), 2013 WL 12075369 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2013)...
eee 9
Lannes v. Flowserve U.S., Inc.,
>
628 Fed. Appx. 957 (9th Cir. 2015)... cccccsccccesccscesscssesscsscssseeceseeeseeceeeeseesessessesssesesseseesnenaseas 9
NSN
Linlor v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am.,
No. 17CV203-MMA (JMA), 2017 WL 1838959 (S.D. Cal. May 8,2017) ccc ecscesceseeeeeees
8
HD
McCabe v.General Foods Corp.,
811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987) oo. cecsscssesecsceseesscesceseescesseecsacesecseesesseeseeseeseeeceseseseaeeaeenes
9,11
CO
Morris v. Princess Cruises,
236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir, 2001) oo... ecceseesceseessecesesseessececeeseesseeessnessesaeecsceessesaseaeessesseseneeaes
12
Oo
10 NewGen LLC v. Safe Cig., LLC,
840 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2016) oo...cece ccccesesccescessecsseessesseesneeseesseeecssesecesseeesecaseaeenseenseeaeenseeees
10
11
No Cost Conference, Inc. v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc.,
LLP
12 940 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Cal. 2013)... cece eececcssesecsseseeseeenessenesenesatescnseseessessnesaseneeaseneens
13
200
Mansukhani,
95825
Suite
13 O’Neil v.Crane Co.,
53 Cal. 4th 335 oc ceccsccsssssscesseesecssesscesscssecseecseecsueesesssesseesssssecsecssesseseseesessseseseseeeesseeseeesesseees
9
Drive,
14
CA
Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc.,
Sacramento,
Scully
15 742 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2014) ooo cecccsscsscesecssccsseeseeeseessesseescessecssesseeeseeeseesesseessessesensesseees
7
Center
16
Rees
Reith v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
Park
Nos. 18-3987, 2019 WL 1382624 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2019).......cceeescesceeteessesseeeseesseseeeees
9,10
Gordon
17
3
Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co.,
18 139 F.3d 1313 (Oth Cir. 1998) o.oo.cee cccscssccseseeeessesesesecseeesseesceeseseeseeseesessessesseseeeseseessseees
11
19 Self v. General Motors Corp.,
588 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1978) oo. cccecssecsscssesseesseesccssecssecseecsecseessesesesseeesscsaecneeeseesssecsssaeeessenss
11
20
Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
21 116 F.3d 373 (Oth Cir, 1997) occ ccsccsecseetecsscneesccesesesesesseesesseeseesesseeseseessessesesssssesseeseseeeeass
7
22 Whitehurst v. Bank Native Am. Home Lending, LLC,
2:14-CV-00318-TLN-AC, 2014 WL 3563430 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014)... eeceeteeees
11
23
Wilson v.Republic Iron & Steel Co.,
24 257 U.S. 92 (1921)... cee ceccssccsssessessesneeseesseessessecsseessecssessesacnsesssesseesassseseseeeeeentesseeseeseeseenseees
12
25 Statutes
26 28 United States Code
Section 1332 .ccccccccssscsessecesssccessecesseecenseecssssseesseeesssscscstscsesssesesscsessscsssesessisecsssescesacsoesaes
6, 7, 11
27
28
-4.
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
28 United States Code
Section 1446 wooo... cececcccecesssessscceccceccscssccsceseessesessssccscevecsssvsssssesesesscssetseeesesseeeseseerenes
Ww
United States Code
Section 1441 ooo eeeccccccccscsscssscscecccccecsccsssesescseceeeussvscececcsceesssscususssssssccesseucersesessicoeeesaenes
WH
b&b
MN
NWN
AN
S&S
oO
10
1]
LLP
12
200
Mansukhani,
95825
Suite
13
Drive,
14
Sacramento, CA
Scully
15
Center
16
Rees
Park
Gordon
17
3
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5-
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, Defendants Teva Women’s
Health, Inc. (“TWH, Inc.”), Teva Women’s Health, LLC (““TWH, LLC”), Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”), Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. (“Teva Branded”),
CooperSurgical, Inc. (“CooperSurgical”), and The Cooper Companies, Inc. (“Cooper”), by and
-
through their undersigned counsel, hereby remove the above-captioned matter from the Superior
AN
Court of Alameda County, California to the United States District Court for the Northern District
DB
of California on the following grounds: |
NSN
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
Fe
1, On December 21, 2020, plaintiff Yessenia Padilla filed a state court action in the
oO
10 Superior Court of Alameda County, California, Case No. RG20084360, against TWH, Inc.,
11 TWH, LLC, Teva USA, Teva Branded, CooperSurgical, and Cooper for injuries allegedly
LLP
12 caused by the use of a ParaGard® T380A Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive (“ParaGard”). (See
200
Mansukhani,
95825
Suite
13 generally Complaint (“Compl.”)) Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against all defendants:
Drive,
14 (1) negligence; (2) strictliability — design defect; (3) strict liability - manufacturing defect;
Sacramento, CA
Scully
15 (4) strict liability — failure to warn; (5) fraud; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) breach of
Center
16 express warranty; (8) breach of implied warranty; and (9)violation of consumer protection laws.
Rees
Park
Gordon
17 (See id.)
3
18 Tl. FILING OF REMOVAL PAPERS
19 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of the removal of this action has
20 been given to plaintiff's counsel, and Notice of Filing Notice of Removal is being filed in the
21 Superior Court of Alameda County, California. A true and accurate copy Notice of Filing Notice
22 of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
23 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of allprocess, pleadings
24 and orders filed and served to date in the action are attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, including
25 the Complaint and Summons.
26 iI. STATUTORY BASES FOR JURISDICTION
27 4. As set forth below, this action is properly removable under the Court’s diversity
28
-6-
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
jurisdiction, under the doctrine of fraudulent joinder, and because this is a civil action between
citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs. Although The Cooper Companies, Inc., is a citizen of California, it does not make
removal improper under either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) or 1441(b)(2) because it is neither
properly joined nor served, and because it was fraudulently joined. Its citizenship should be
ignored.
DD
A. The Amount in Controversy Requirement is Satisfied
NN
5. “[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that
Oo
the amount incontroversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
oO
10 Co., LLC v.Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). “Evidence establishing the amount is required
11 by § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s
LLP
12 allegation.” Jd.
200
Mansukhani,
13
95825
Suite
6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(Gi), a defendant may assert the amount in
14
Drive,
controversy in its notice of removal ifremoving from a jurisdiction where “[s]tate practice either
Sacramento, CA
Scully
15 does not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the
Center
16 amount demanded.” Removal of a lawsuit isproper upon the defendant’s assertion of the amount
Rees
Park
17
Gordon
in controversy ifthe district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
3
18 controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (c)(2)(B); see
19 also Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2014); Anaya v. Lowe’s Home
20 Centers, LLC, 14CV1260 L BGS, 2014 WL 2199878, *1 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2014). If the
21 amount incontroversy is not facially apparent from the complaint, the court may consider facts
22 in the removal petition and require parties to submit summary judgment-type evidence relevant
23 to the amount in controversy. Singer v.State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116F.3d 373, 377 (9th
24 Cir. 1997).
25 7. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages, exclusive of interest and costs, in excess of
26 the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court. (Ex. B, Compl. ¥ 29; see also “Relief
27 Requested,” pages 32- 33). Itis apparent from the face of the complaint, and the injuries alleged
28
-7-
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
by plaintiff,that the amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff claims that,
as a direct result of her use of the ParaGard, “Plaintiff suffered from having a broken arm of the
ParaGard in her.” (Ex. B, Compl. § 71.) She asserts this caused her damage, including, but not
limited to, “pain, suffering, mental anguish, the loss of reproductive health, loss of enjoyment
of life,medical expenses and other out of pocket losses and loss of income.” (/d.) Plaintiff
specifically seeks damages for, among other things: (1) past and future medical expenses, as
NW
well as the cost associated with past and future life care; (2) past and future lostwages and loss
nN
of earning capacity; (3) past and future emotional distress; (4) consequential damages; and
oOo
(5) all available noneconomic damages, including without limitation pain, suffering, and loss of
o
10 enjoyment of life. 7d, § 215 (a)-(f).)
11 8. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages. (See id, § 215().) “It is well established
LLP
12 that punitive damages are part of the amount of controversy in a civil action.” Gibson v.
200
Mansukhani,
13
95825
Suite
Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001); Linlor v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., No.
14
Drive,
17CV203-MMA (JMA), 2017 WL 1838959, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 8,2017). Thus, plaintiff's claim
Sacramento, CA
Scully
15 for punitive damages in addition to the compensation she seeks for allegedly serious and
Center
16 permanent physical injuries, when coupled with additional requested economic damages, further
Rees
Park
17
Gordon
demonstrates that the amount in controversy of this matter exceeds $75,000.
3
18 9. Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges she has suffered serious bodily injuries, courts
19 readily have found that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. See, e.g,
20 Hammarlund v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 215CV05506SV WJEM, 2015 WL 5826780, *2 (C.D. Cal.
21 Oct. 2,2015) (“In cases involving severe injuries, especially those requiring surgery, courts have
22 found itfacially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy was satisfied.”);
23 Campbell v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., No. CVIF-051499-FVS-DLB, 2006 WL 707291, *3
24 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2006) (amount in controversy satisfied where, following a car accident, the
25 plaintiff allegedly suffered head trauma, a broken arm, broken wrist, a deep laceration to his
26 lower leg, and sought damages for wage loss,property loss, hospital and medical expenses, and
27 loss of earning capacity); Bryant v.Apotex, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-01377-LJO, 2012 WL 5933042,
28
-8-
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
*4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (finding amount in controversy satisfied for product liability case
in which plaintiff alleged “severe pain, esophagus damage and internal bleeding” due to
allegedly defective drugs and seeking “compensatory damages for injuries and severe pain
lasting six months, severe emotional distress, and punitive damages.”)
10. Accordingly, although Defendants deny any liability or that they are responsible
in any way for plaintiff's alleged damages, based upon plaintiff's characterization of the alleged
DW
damages at issue, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
s
B. There is Complete Diversity of Citizenship
CO
11. Plaintiff Yessenia Padilla is acitizen of California. (See also, Ex. B., Compl., § 7.)
oOo
10 12. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Teva USA is incorporated in Delaware and,
11 although it does not affect diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff incorrectly states Teva USA has its
LLP
12 principal place of business (“headquarters”) in Pennsylvania. (/d., |9.) As of January 1,2020,
200
Mansukhani,
13
95825
Suite
Teva USA’s principal place of business isin Parsippany, New Jersey. (See Declaration of Brian
14
Drive,
Shanahan (“Shanahan Dec.’’) § 4, attached hereto as Exhibit “C”); see also, Holley v. Teva
Sacramento, CA
Scully
15 Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-1613, 2020 WL 4470617, *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug.
Center
16 4, 2020). Therefore, by plaintiff's allegations, for diversity purposes, Defendant Teva USA is a
Rees
Park
17 citizen of Delaware and Pennsylvania.'! Teva USA isdiverse from plaintiff.
Gordon
3
18
19 !Teva USA also isfraudulently joined in this suit. Joinder is fraudulent “[i]f the plaintiff
20 fails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according
to the settled rules of the state,the joinder of the resident defendant is fraudulent.” See McCabe
21 v. General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Hamilton Materials, Inc.
v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007)). Teva USA did not manufacture or
22 sell the ParaGard IUD allegedly placed in plaintiff. Itis well-settled that California law requires
23 a plaintiff to identify a defendant as amanufacturer or seller of the product that plaintiff alleges
caused her injury in order for liabilityto attach to that defendant. See, e.g., O’Neilv. Crane Co.,
24 53 Cal. 4th 335, 347 (“A bedrock principle in strictliability law requires that ‘the plaintiffs
injury must have been caused by a ‘defect’ in the [defendant’s] product.’”) (citation omitted);
25 Lannes v. CBS Corp., No. CV 12-1876 PA (AJWX), 2013 WL 12075369, *3 (C.D. Cal. July 10,
2013), aff'd sub nom. Lannes v. Flowserve U.S., Inc., 628 Fed. Appx. 957 (9th Cir. 2015)
26 (applying O’Neil’s holding that plaintiff must have been injured by a product manufactured by
27 the defendant to claims based on negligence and breach of warranty). See Reith v. Teva Pharms.
USA, Inc., Nos. 18-3987, 3992, 2019 WL 1382624, *3-4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2019) (holding
28 “It]he discovery also establishes that Teva USA never researched, developed, designed,
-9-
JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder)
13. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant TWH, LLC, isa limited liability company formed
under Delaware law and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva USA. (Ex. B., Compl., J 12.)
TWH, LLC’s sole member is Barr Pharmaceuticals, LLC, formed under Delaware law with its
principal place of business in New Jers
Preview
e | @ cA KATHLEEN M. RHOADS (SBN: 144466) krhoads@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP AL FILED 3 Park Center Drive, Suite 200 OUNTY Sacramento, CA 95825 a Telephone: (916) 830-6511 FEB 1 6 2021 Facsimile: (916) 920-4402 - Attorneys for Defendants By__{UF ) MN TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, LLC; TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC* TEWA ND PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.; and COOPERSURGICAL, INC. eo SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA oO 10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 1] YESSENIA PADILLA, ) CASE NO. RG20084360 LLP 12 ) Plaintiff, 200 ) Mansukhani, ) NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF 95825 Suite 13 vs. REMOVAL TO USS. DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN Drive, 14 ) CA TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC.; DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.; ) Sacramento, Scully 15 TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, LLC: ) Center TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL) Complaint filed December 21, 2020 16 PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; ) Rees Park THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC. and ) 17 COOPERSURGICAL, INC., ; Gordon 3 18 Defendants. ) ) 19 COME NOW Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Women’s Health, 20 Inc.; Teva Women’s Health, LLC; Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc.; The 21 Cooper Companies, Inc.; and CooperSurgical, Inc.,hereby to give notice, through counsel, of 22 the removal of this action from the Superior Court of Alameda County,' California, to the 23 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1441, et seq. A copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a 25 part thereof. 26 The above-styled action ishereby removed from this Court to the United States District 27 Court for the Northern District of California. 28 Notice of Filingof Notice of Removal toUS. 4. DistrictCourt forthe Northern Districtof ayer California wd, PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that with the filing of this Notice, removal of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is effected and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), no further proceedings may be had in this action. Dated: February 12, 2021 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP WN ss "Kathleen MJRhoads ~ Attorneysifét Defendants CO Teva Women’s Health, LLC; Teva Women’s Health, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; oO Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, 10 Inc.; The Cooper Companies, Inc.; and CooperSurgical, Inc. 11 LLP 12 200 Mansukhani, 95825 Suite 13 Drive, 14 Sacramento, CA Scully 15 Center 16 Rees Park Gordon 17 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- Notice of Filingof Notice of Removal toUS. DistrictCourt forthe Northern Districtof California EXHIBITA KATHLEEN M. RHOADS (SBN 144466) krhoads@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP WN 3 Park Center Drive, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Ww Telephone: (916) 830-6511 Facsimile: (916) 920-4402 -_ Attorneys for Defendants MN TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, LLC; TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL NHN PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.; and COOPERSURGICAL, INC. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA oO 10 11 YESSENIA PADILLA, CASE NO. LLP 12 Plaintiff, JOINT NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF 200 ee Mansukhani, ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 13 95825 Suite vs. § 1441(b)(DIVERSITY/ ee ee 14 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; FRAUDULENT JOINDER) Drive, CA TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, LLC: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Sacramento, Scully 15 TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.; Center TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL 16 PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; Complaint filed December 21, 2020 Rees Park THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC., and 17 Removed from Superior Court of Gordon COOPERSURGICAL, INC. Alameda County, RG20084360 3 18 19 Defendants. ee 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -]- JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NATURE OF THE ACTION 1... eeeeeeeseeeteeeeeees sssveeeesseeessnsecssnseessseessasenssesesssasenssesensees 6 II. FILING OF REMOVAL PAPERS... eeeeeee Leveceoceesaseesssereccesoesareceosessaceeresenecseoeseneces 6 Hil. STATUTORY BASES FOR JURISDICTION 00... ceceseesceccseesceeceseseeeeseeaceeeeesseeaeeee 6 A. The Amount in Controversy Requirement is Satisfied ............cccsccssstesssesteeeeeeaes 7 NN B. There isComplete Diversity of Citizenship.............cccccssesssesssessceceseeesecsseeteeseenes 9 “SN C. Plaintiff Has Fraudulently Joined Coopet.............cecccsseessesseeseeseeseeesseeneessenseeseees 11 CO IV. CONSENT TO REMOVAL Wu...ce eseceseseeseeecseeseeeeseecesceseeacseesesscseesceaceceseeseeaceeseeeseeeees 14 Oo 10 NOTICE OF REMOVAL IS TIMELY .... eee ececeessecesseceecesceseseenseseeceseeaseseseeaeeeeaeeneeseaees 14 11 VI. VENUE IS PROPER WITH THIS COURT .........cceseessessesssetceeseceeesesceeeseeescseeeeaseeeaeeeees 15 LLP 12 200 Mansukhani, 13 95825 Suite 14 Drive, Sacramento, CA Scully 15 Center 16 Rees Park 17 Gordon 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) WN Cases Ww Accord Winner Chevrolet, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., &h No. 2:08-cv-00539-LKK-JFM, 2008 WL 2693741 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2008) 0... eee 13 NN Anaya v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 14CV1260 L BGS, 2014 WL 2199878 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2014)... cee ceceesesseesseeseeteeeeeeees 7 DWN Ayemou v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., SN 312 Fed. App’x 24 (9th Cir, 2008) .0...ccc cccccessssccesecssesseeseeseeesecesecseeensessessesssecsssesesesesseeenseess 12 Oo Bryant v.Apotex, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-01377-LJO, 2012 WL 5933042 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) .....ccceeecccceseeseeeeees 9 oO 10 Campbell v. Bridgestone/Firestone. Inc.. No. CVIF-051499-FVS-DLB, 2006 WL 707291 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2006)...........ccseeseeseees 8 11 LLP Caswell v. Olympic Pipeline Co., 12 484 Fed. App’x 151 (9th Cir. 2012) ooo. cesseessessececeeceeeceecsseeseesseseaceacessesesenecneeeeesaeens 12 200 Mansukhani, 13 95825 Suite Cavallini v.State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256 (Sth Cir. 1995) ooo cccccseesseescesseescceeceeceseessaecseecseeeaceeecsaecssecseeeneeseeeseesseeeeeeaeees 12 14 Drive, CA CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Superior Court, Sacramento, Scully 15 157 Cal. App. 4th 1101, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202 (2007)... cece ceeeseesceeseeeceteceeeeceeesseeeseeseeees 13 Center 16 City of Los Angeles v. Wells Fargo & Co., Rees Park 22 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2014)........daceseseseecscecesaccceseeesesececesasesssasessesessacecensseseneuesesceeree 13 17 Gordon 3 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 18 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014)... eecccccecesecesessseeseenseeseenseeecsseessecseseseessecsessesseeseeesesesssaueeseessesessneeenes 7 19 Delgado v. MillerCoors, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-05241-DMG, 2016 WL 5852852 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)... ceeeeseeereetees 12 20 Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 21 116 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2015) occ cecscssesscesecsecssceeeeseeseeseeseesecseeecseeseseeeeeesneeaees 13 22 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001) oe ceeesesteeseeenees eesecenseesseesseessecessecsaecssacesseeestecsseessaseeseenseeeues 8 23 Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 24 494 F.3d 1203 (Sth Cir. 2007)...ccccccsscsssscssscsssecescesseessseessseseseeeseecsseesseesseeseecseseeeseeesesesaeeees 9 25 Hammarlund v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 215CV05506SVWJEM, 2015 WL 5826780 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2,2015)...eccecceseeseeneeee 8 26 Holley v.Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., 27 Civil Action No. 20-1613, 2020 WL 4470617 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2020)... cccceesesseeseeseeees 9 28 -3- JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir, 2009) oo... ceccecsssccescecceseesesscesessecsseacssecseeseeseesessecsesseeseseeeneseaeeseeeees 14 Lannes v. CBS Corp., No. CV 12-1876 PA (AJWX), 2013 WL 12075369 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2013)... eee 9 Lannes v. Flowserve U.S., Inc., > 628 Fed. Appx. 957 (9th Cir. 2015)... cccccsccccesccscesscssesscsscssseeceseeeseeceeeeseesessessesssesesseseesnenaseas 9 NSN Linlor v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., No. 17CV203-MMA (JMA), 2017 WL 1838959 (S.D. Cal. May 8,2017) ccc ecscesceseeeeeees 8 HD McCabe v.General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987) oo. cecsscssesecsceseesscesceseescesseecsacesecseesesseeseeseeseeeceseseseaeeaeenes 9,11 CO Morris v. Princess Cruises, 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir, 2001) oo... ecceseesceseessecesesseessececeeseesseeessnessesaeecsceessesaseaeessesseseneeaes 12 Oo 10 NewGen LLC v. Safe Cig., LLC, 840 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2016) oo...cece ccccesesccescessecsseessesseesneeseesseeecssesecesseeesecaseaeenseenseeaeenseeees 10 11 No Cost Conference, Inc. v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., LLP 12 940 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Cal. 2013)... cece eececcssesecsseseeseeenessenesenesatescnseseessessnesaseneeaseneens 13 200 Mansukhani, 95825 Suite 13 O’Neil v.Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335 oc ceccsccsssssscesseesecssesscesscssecseecseecsueesesssesseesssssecsecssesseseseesessseseseseeeesseeseeesesseees 9 Drive, 14 CA Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., Sacramento, Scully 15 742 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2014) ooo cecccsscsscesecssccsseeseeeseessesseescessecssesseeeseeeseesesseessessesensesseees 7 Center 16 Rees Reith v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Park Nos. 18-3987, 2019 WL 1382624 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2019).......cceeescesceeteessesseeeseesseseeeees 9,10 Gordon 17 3 Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 18 139 F.3d 1313 (Oth Cir. 1998) o.oo.cee cccscssccseseeeessesesesecseeesseesceeseseeseeseesessessesseseeeseseessseees 11 19 Self v. General Motors Corp., 588 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1978) oo. cccecssecsscssesseesseesccssecssecseecsecseessesesesseeesscsaecneeeseesssecsssaeeessenss 11 20 Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 21 116 F.3d 373 (Oth Cir, 1997) occ ccsccsecseetecsscneesccesesesesesseesesseeseesesseeseseessessesesssssesseeseseeeeass 7 22 Whitehurst v. Bank Native Am. Home Lending, LLC, 2:14-CV-00318-TLN-AC, 2014 WL 3563430 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014)... eeceeteeees 11 23 Wilson v.Republic Iron & Steel Co., 24 257 U.S. 92 (1921)... cee ceccssccsssessessesneeseesseessessecsseessecssessesacnsesssesseesassseseseeeeeentesseeseeseeseenseees 12 25 Statutes 26 28 United States Code Section 1332 .ccccccccssscsessecesssccessecesseecenseecssssseesseeesssscscstscsesssesesscsessscsssesessisecsssescesacsoesaes 6, 7, 11 27 28 -4. JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) 28 United States Code Section 1446 wooo... cececcccecesssessscceccceccscssccsceseessesessssccscevecsssvsssssesesesscssetseeesesseeeseseerenes Ww United States Code Section 1441 ooo eeeccccccccscsscssscscecccccecsccsssesescseceeeussvscececcsceesssscususssssssccesseucersesessicoeeesaenes WH b&b MN NWN AN S&S oO 10 1] LLP 12 200 Mansukhani, 95825 Suite 13 Drive, 14 Sacramento, CA Scully 15 Center 16 Rees Park Gordon 17 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5- JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, Defendants Teva Women’s Health, Inc. (“TWH, Inc.”), Teva Women’s Health, LLC (““TWH, LLC”), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”), Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. (“Teva Branded”), CooperSurgical, Inc. (“CooperSurgical”), and The Cooper Companies, Inc. (“Cooper”), by and - through their undersigned counsel, hereby remove the above-captioned matter from the Superior AN Court of Alameda County, California to the United States District Court for the Northern District DB of California on the following grounds: | NSN I. NATURE OF THE ACTION Fe 1, On December 21, 2020, plaintiff Yessenia Padilla filed a state court action in the oO 10 Superior Court of Alameda County, California, Case No. RG20084360, against TWH, Inc., 11 TWH, LLC, Teva USA, Teva Branded, CooperSurgical, and Cooper for injuries allegedly LLP 12 caused by the use of a ParaGard® T380A Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive (“ParaGard”). (See 200 Mansukhani, 95825 Suite 13 generally Complaint (“Compl.”)) Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against all defendants: Drive, 14 (1) negligence; (2) strictliability — design defect; (3) strict liability - manufacturing defect; Sacramento, CA Scully 15 (4) strict liability — failure to warn; (5) fraud; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) breach of Center 16 express warranty; (8) breach of implied warranty; and (9)violation of consumer protection laws. Rees Park Gordon 17 (See id.) 3 18 Tl. FILING OF REMOVAL PAPERS 19 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of the removal of this action has 20 been given to plaintiff's counsel, and Notice of Filing Notice of Removal is being filed in the 21 Superior Court of Alameda County, California. A true and accurate copy Notice of Filing Notice 22 of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 23 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of allprocess, pleadings 24 and orders filed and served to date in the action are attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, including 25 the Complaint and Summons. 26 iI. STATUTORY BASES FOR JURISDICTION 27 4. As set forth below, this action is properly removable under the Court’s diversity 28 -6- JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) jurisdiction, under the doctrine of fraudulent joinder, and because this is a civil action between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Although The Cooper Companies, Inc., is a citizen of California, it does not make removal improper under either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) or 1441(b)(2) because it is neither properly joined nor served, and because it was fraudulently joined. Its citizenship should be ignored. DD A. The Amount in Controversy Requirement is Satisfied NN 5. “[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that Oo the amount incontroversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating oO 10 Co., LLC v.Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). “Evidence establishing the amount is required 11 by § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s LLP 12 allegation.” Jd. 200 Mansukhani, 13 95825 Suite 6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(Gi), a defendant may assert the amount in 14 Drive, controversy in its notice of removal ifremoving from a jurisdiction where “[s]tate practice either Sacramento, CA Scully 15 does not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the Center 16 amount demanded.” Removal of a lawsuit isproper upon the defendant’s assertion of the amount Rees Park 17 Gordon in controversy ifthe district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in 3 18 controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (c)(2)(B); see 19 also Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2014); Anaya v. Lowe’s Home 20 Centers, LLC, 14CV1260 L BGS, 2014 WL 2199878, *1 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2014). If the 21 amount incontroversy is not facially apparent from the complaint, the court may consider facts 22 in the removal petition and require parties to submit summary judgment-type evidence relevant 23 to the amount in controversy. Singer v.State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116F.3d 373, 377 (9th 24 Cir. 1997). 25 7. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages, exclusive of interest and costs, in excess of 26 the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court. (Ex. B, Compl. ¥ 29; see also “Relief 27 Requested,” pages 32- 33). Itis apparent from the face of the complaint, and the injuries alleged 28 -7- JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) by plaintiff,that the amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff claims that, as a direct result of her use of the ParaGard, “Plaintiff suffered from having a broken arm of the ParaGard in her.” (Ex. B, Compl. § 71.) She asserts this caused her damage, including, but not limited to, “pain, suffering, mental anguish, the loss of reproductive health, loss of enjoyment of life,medical expenses and other out of pocket losses and loss of income.” (/d.) Plaintiff specifically seeks damages for, among other things: (1) past and future medical expenses, as NW well as the cost associated with past and future life care; (2) past and future lostwages and loss nN of earning capacity; (3) past and future emotional distress; (4) consequential damages; and oOo (5) all available noneconomic damages, including without limitation pain, suffering, and loss of o 10 enjoyment of life. 7d, § 215 (a)-(f).) 11 8. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages. (See id, § 215().) “It is well established LLP 12 that punitive damages are part of the amount of controversy in a civil action.” Gibson v. 200 Mansukhani, 13 95825 Suite Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001); Linlor v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., No. 14 Drive, 17CV203-MMA (JMA), 2017 WL 1838959, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 8,2017). Thus, plaintiff's claim Sacramento, CA Scully 15 for punitive damages in addition to the compensation she seeks for allegedly serious and Center 16 permanent physical injuries, when coupled with additional requested economic damages, further Rees Park 17 Gordon demonstrates that the amount in controversy of this matter exceeds $75,000. 3 18 9. Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges she has suffered serious bodily injuries, courts 19 readily have found that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. See, e.g, 20 Hammarlund v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 215CV05506SV WJEM, 2015 WL 5826780, *2 (C.D. Cal. 21 Oct. 2,2015) (“In cases involving severe injuries, especially those requiring surgery, courts have 22 found itfacially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy was satisfied.”); 23 Campbell v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., No. CVIF-051499-FVS-DLB, 2006 WL 707291, *3 24 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2006) (amount in controversy satisfied where, following a car accident, the 25 plaintiff allegedly suffered head trauma, a broken arm, broken wrist, a deep laceration to his 26 lower leg, and sought damages for wage loss,property loss, hospital and medical expenses, and 27 loss of earning capacity); Bryant v.Apotex, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-01377-LJO, 2012 WL 5933042, 28 -8- JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (finding amount in controversy satisfied for product liability case in which plaintiff alleged “severe pain, esophagus damage and internal bleeding” due to allegedly defective drugs and seeking “compensatory damages for injuries and severe pain lasting six months, severe emotional distress, and punitive damages.”) 10. Accordingly, although Defendants deny any liability or that they are responsible in any way for plaintiff's alleged damages, based upon plaintiff's characterization of the alleged DW damages at issue, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. s B. There is Complete Diversity of Citizenship CO 11. Plaintiff Yessenia Padilla is acitizen of California. (See also, Ex. B., Compl., § 7.) oOo 10 12. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Teva USA is incorporated in Delaware and, 11 although it does not affect diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff incorrectly states Teva USA has its LLP 12 principal place of business (“headquarters”) in Pennsylvania. (/d., |9.) As of January 1,2020, 200 Mansukhani, 13 95825 Suite Teva USA’s principal place of business isin Parsippany, New Jersey. (See Declaration of Brian 14 Drive, Shanahan (“Shanahan Dec.’’) § 4, attached hereto as Exhibit “C”); see also, Holley v. Teva Sacramento, CA Scully 15 Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-1613, 2020 WL 4470617, *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. Center 16 4, 2020). Therefore, by plaintiff's allegations, for diversity purposes, Defendant Teva USA is a Rees Park 17 citizen of Delaware and Pennsylvania.'! Teva USA isdiverse from plaintiff. Gordon 3 18 19 !Teva USA also isfraudulently joined in this suit. Joinder is fraudulent “[i]f the plaintiff 20 fails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state,the joinder of the resident defendant is fraudulent.” See McCabe 21 v. General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007)). Teva USA did not manufacture or 22 sell the ParaGard IUD allegedly placed in plaintiff. Itis well-settled that California law requires 23 a plaintiff to identify a defendant as amanufacturer or seller of the product that plaintiff alleges caused her injury in order for liabilityto attach to that defendant. See, e.g., O’Neilv. Crane Co., 24 53 Cal. 4th 335, 347 (“A bedrock principle in strictliability law requires that ‘the plaintiffs injury must have been caused by a ‘defect’ in the [defendant’s] product.’”) (citation omitted); 25 Lannes v. CBS Corp., No. CV 12-1876 PA (AJWX), 2013 WL 12075369, *3 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2013), aff'd sub nom. Lannes v. Flowserve U.S., Inc., 628 Fed. Appx. 957 (9th Cir. 2015) 26 (applying O’Neil’s holding that plaintiff must have been injured by a product manufactured by 27 the defendant to claims based on negligence and breach of warranty). See Reith v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Nos. 18-3987, 3992, 2019 WL 1382624, *3-4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2019) (holding 28 “It]he discovery also establishes that Teva USA never researched, developed, designed, -9- JointNotice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(Diversity/Fraudulent Joinder) 13. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant TWH, LLC, isa limited liability company formed under Delaware law and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva USA. (Ex. B., Compl., J 12.) TWH, LLC’s sole member is Barr Pharmaceuticals, LLC, formed under Delaware law with its principal place of business in New Jers