Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
771 F.3d 1218 (2014)
- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Consumers of the painkiller propoxyphene (consumers) (plaintiffs) sued Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Xanodyne) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) (defendants) for injuries the consumers allegedly sustained after ingesting the drug. By 2012, dozens of propoxyphene-related actions were pending in California, and a group of attorneys representing the consumers petitioned the California Judicial Council to establish coordinated proceedings under California procedural rules. The petition sought coordination under a single judge for all purposes with the intent to avoid duplicative or inconsistent orders or judgments. Shortly after the consumers’ counsel filed their petition for coordination, counsel for Xanodyne and Teva evoked the Class Action Fairness Act to remove the cases to federal district court. The district court remanded the cases back to state court on the grounds that the consumers’ petitions for coordination did not amount to a proposal to try the actions jointly. Xanodyne and Teva appealed the order for remand, but a three-judge panel affirmed the order. The circuit court voted to rehear the case en banc.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gould, J.)
Dissent (Rawlinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
