Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dyer v. C.R. Bard Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

September 11, 2019

JOHN H. DYER, JR.
v.
C. R. BARD INC., ET AL.

          NOTICE AND ORDER

          ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This is a civil action involving claims for damages asserted by John H. Dyer, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) based upon the injuries he allegedly sustained in connection with an inferior vena cava filter manufactured by Defendants C.R. Bard Incorporated (“C.R. Bard”) and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“BPV”) (collectively, “Defendants”).[1] On April 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed his “Amended Master Short Form Complaint for Damages, ” (“Short Form Complaint”) in the Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.[2] The case was transferred to this Court on September 9, 2019.[3]

         Proper information regarding the citizenship of all parties, and the amount in controversy, is necessary to establish the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Short Form Complaint alleges that the Court's basis of jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship and references and incorporates the “Master Complaint for Damages in MDL 2641” (“Master Complaint”), filed on the docket of the MDL.[4] The Master Complaint reflects that Defendant C.R. Bard is a corporation organized under Delaware law with a principal place of business in New Jersey[5] and Defendant BPV is a “wholly-owned corporation of Defendant C.R. Bard” with its principal place of business in Arizona and “is domiciled” in that district.[6] Furthermore, the Master Complaint asserts that “the amount in controversy for each action exceeds seventy-give thousand dollars [] excluding interest and costs….”[7] Accordingly, the citizenship of Defendants is adequately pled, and the amount in controversy appears to be met. However, Plaintiff's citizenship is unclear. The Short Form Complaint only alleges Plaintiff's residence, [8] and the Civil Cover Sheet states that Plaintiff is “Citizen of Another State, ”[9] neither of which is sufficient to establish citizenship. “For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.”[10]Furthermore, “[f]or adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one's intent to remain there.”[11] Thus, to properly allege the citizenship of an individual, a party must identify the individual's domicile. As Plaintiff's citizenship is not clear, the Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether it may exercise diversity jurisdiction in this matter.[12]

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before September 25, 2019, Plaintiff James H. Dyer, Jr. shall file an Amended Complaint that contains all of Plaintiff's numbered allegations as revised, supplemented, and/or amended, without reference to any other document in the record, [13]and that adequately alleges the citizenship of Plaintiff James H. Dyer, Jr.

         The case will be allowed to proceed if jurisdiction is adequately established.

---------

Notes:

[1] R. Doc. 1.

[2] No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC, R. Doc. 364.

[3] R. Docs. 1, 4-5.

[4] R. Doc. 1, introductory paragraph and p. 2, ¶ 9.

[5] MDL, R. Doc. 364, p. 4.

[6] MDL, R. Doc. 364, pp. 4, 6.

[7] MDL, R. Doc. 364, p. 6, ¶ 20.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.