United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Hon.
John J. Tuchi, United States District Judge
At
issue is Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Remand (Doc. 8),
in which Plaintiffs argue that their Complaint does not raise
a federal question and the Court therefore lacks federal
question jurisdiction in this matter under 28 U.S.C. §
1331, contrary to Defendants' allegations in the Notice
of Removal (Doc. 1, Notice). Because Defendants already made
their argument for federal question jurisdiction in the
Notice, and because the Court has an independent obligation
to determine its subject matter jurisdiction in every case,
the Court will not await Defendants' response to
Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion.
Federal
courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if
subject matter jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);
Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116
(9th Cir. 2004). The removing party is required to provide a
signed notice of removal that contains a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal. 28 U.S.C. §
1446(a). The removing party carries the burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and doubts about
federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to
state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A
plaintiff may seek to have a case remanded to the state court
from which it was removed if the district court lacks
jurisdiction or if there is a defect in the removal
procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The district court must
remand the case if it appears before final judgment that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
Unlike
state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a
limited number of cases, and those cases typically involve
either a controversy between citizens of different states
(“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of
federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”).
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that a federal court must not
disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter
jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a federal court
is “obligated to consider sua sponte whether
[it has] subject matter jurisdiction” in each case and
to dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is
lacking. Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1116 (internal
quotations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).
In the
Complaint (Doc. 1-3 at 105-157; 1-4; 1-5, Compl.), Plaintiffs
raise nine state law causes of action based on
Defendants' alleged participation in the marketing and
distribution of opioid medications. Defendants removed the
action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction
because Plaintiffs allege that certain Defendants “saw
the profit potential in opioid sales, participated in the
conspiracy by ignoring their legal responsibilities under the
Controlled Substances Act, and flooded affected areas with
opioids while knowing they were contributing to, but
profiting from, widespread addiction and human misery.”
(Notice ¶ 9 (citing Compl. ¶ 14).) Defendants thus
argue that Plaintiffs' “right to relief necessarily
depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal
law”-namely, responsibilities under the Controlled
Substances Act. (Notice ¶ 21 (citing Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. v. Rude, 690 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.
2012)).)
“[W]here
a claim finds its origins in state rather than federal law,
” the Supreme Court has “identified a special and
small category of cases in which arising under jurisdiction
still lies.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258
(2013) (internal quotations omitted). To find federal
question jurisdiction within state law claims, the Court
asks: “Does the state-law claim necessarily raise a
stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial,
which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state
judicial responsibilities?” Id. (internal
quotations omitted).
The
Court agrees with the courts that have addressed this issue
in similar cases and found that, to the extent the Complaint
raises any question under the Controlled Substances Act, the
question is not substantial, resolution of the question is
not essential for Plaintiffs to succeed, and the Controlled
Substances Act does not provide for a private right of
action, indicating that Congress did not intend that federal
courts would exercise federal question jurisdiction and
provide remedies under the statute. E.g. Tucson Med. Ctr.
v. Purdue Pharma LP, No. CV-18-00532-TUC-RCC, 2018 WL
6629659, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 2018) (citing Doc. 30-1,
Order in City of Worcester v. Purdue Pharma LP, No.
18-11958 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2018)); see also Merrell Dow
Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 812 (1986)
(concluding no federal question jurisdiction exists over a
state law claim implicating a violation of federal branding
rules, in part because no private right of action exists for
that violation and finding federal question jurisdiction
would “flout, or at least undermine, congressional
intent”).
Because
Plaintiffs have not raised a federal question in their
Complaint sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on
this Court, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, the
Court must remand this action. See Herman Family
Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th
Cir. 2001) (concluding that, “[w]ithout the hook of
[federal question] jurisdiction-the basis for original
jurisdiction-the district court has no power under either 28
U.S.C. § 1367 or Article III of the Constitution to
adjudicate any claims in the lawsuit” and
should remand the case to state court).
IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion
to Remand (Doc. 8).
. . . .
. . . .
IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to remand this
action to Mohave County Superior ...