Anderson v. Bayer Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
610 F.3d 390 (2010)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
The same attorneys filed five separate state-court lawsuits against Bayer Corporation (Bayer) (defendant). Each action (1) alleged that Bayer’s drug Trasylol had injured the plaintiffs named in the lawsuits and (2) contained at least one nondiverse plaintiff. Four lawsuits named fewer than 100 plaintiffs, but the fifth lawsuit named 100 plaintiffs, seemingly by chance. Bayer had unsuccessfully tried to remove some of the lawsuits to federal court on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction. Bayer then tried to remove all five lawsuits under the mass-action provision in the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which provided federal jurisdiction over actions with at least 100 named plaintiffs. Bayer argued that the plaintiffs’ attorneys had deliberately broken a single claim—that Trasylol had caused injuries—into multiple lawsuits to avoid federal jurisdiction under CAFA’s mass-action provision. Bayer claimed that these virtually identical cases should be considered together as a single mass action that could be decided by a federal court. The district court refused to consider the cases together and remanded the four lawsuits that had fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Bayer requested permission from the Seventh Circuit to use a CAFA provision that would allow it to appeal the remand orders.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.