Mass Action Is Beyond The Mere 'Number Game'

Article by CAFA Law Blog

Previously published by CAFA Law Blog on 29 March 2012.

Hammonds v. Monsanto Co., No. 4:11 CV 1660 DDN, 2011 WL 5554529 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2011).

While remanding this action to state court, a District Court in Missouri held that a defendant cannot consolidate several smaller state court actions into one 'mass action,' when plaintiff chose to structure her claims and remain outside of CAFA's grant of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Helen Hammonds, filed this action on behalf of herself individually and as survivor of decedent William Hammonds against the defendants, Monsanto Co., Solutia, Inc., Pharmacia Corp., and Pfizer, Inc., in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.

The plaintiff's husband William was a North Carolina resident who died in 2008 from lymphohematopoietic cancer. The plaintiff alleged that William's cancer arose from substantial dietary and environmental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs"), chemical compounds used in insulating fluids in certain electrical equipment that were manufactured by the original Monsanto Chemical Company (Old Monsanto) until 1977, when Congress banned their manufacture. The plaintiff alleged that defendants, Monsanto Co. (New Monsanto), Solutia, Inc., Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer, Inc., subsequently acquired portions of Old Monsanto, thereby exposing them to liability for the PCBs.

The defendants removed the action to the federal district court under the "mass action" provision of CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

The plaintiff moved to remand, which the District Court granted.

The defendants argued that this was one of seven cases which collectively constituted a "mass action" under CAFA because each of these actions involved identical allegations. The defendants stated that the plaintiff's counsel filed seven different lawsuits, each with less than 100 plaintiffs, to evade federal jurisdiction under CAFA.

The defendants, relying on Westerfeld v. Independent Processing, LLC, 621 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2010) and Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., 551 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2008) contended that for jurisdictional purposes, the claims from the similar actions should be viewed as one "mass action." They argued that Eighth Circuit abjures efforts to avoid federal court jurisdiction by manipulative artful pleading, and that a plaintiff ought not be able to avoid CAFA jurisdiction by splintering into separate actions what would otherwise be mass actions under...