In re Johnson & Johnson

Case Updates

The Court denied the apellants’ petition for rehearing.

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber urged the Tenth Circuit to grant review of the district court’s order refusing to exercise CAFA jurisdiction. By enacting CAFA, Congress expanded federal jurisdiction and codified a strong national policy favoring the resolution by federal courts of class and mass actions of national importance. But Plaintiffs’ lawyers continue to employ creative devices to avoid CAFA’s reach. One such device was employed here: dividing what is really one case of 650 plaintiffs into several cases with plaintiff counts falling just shy of 100 persons so as to avoid CAFA’s threshold. The Chamber argued that the Tenth Circuit should adopt the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, which at least three other circuits have followed or adopted, and hold that such creative pleading devices should not deprive a federal court of what is in substance a CAFA mass action. Jeremy B. Rosen and Steven S. Fleishman of Horitz & Levy, LLP represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as co-counsel to the National Chamber Litigation Center.