On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit handed down its opinion in Teague v. Johnson & Johnson, an appeal raising issues of federal jurisdiction under the “mass action” provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). More than 600 plaintiffs who had suffered injury as a result of their use of transvaginal mesh medical devices manufactured by Johnson & Johnson sued the company in eleven separate actions, each with fewer than 100 plaintiffs, in state court in Oklahoma. Defendant removed the cases to federal court contending that, because all of the cases were before the same judge, the cases constituted a mass action for purposes of federal jurisdiction under CAFA. After the District Court ordered the cases remanded to state court, J&J sought and received permission to appeal the issue to the Court of Appeals.

CCL submitted an amicus brief to the 10th Circuit on behalf of the American Association of Justice, written by CCL’s Chief Litigation Counsel, Louis Bograd. CCL argued that the filing of multiple, similar lawsuits each with fewer than 100 plaintiffs, without more, does not constitute a proposal that the separate suits be “tried jointly” and thus is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction as a “mass action” under CAFA.

The 10th Circuit panel unanimously agreed with CCL, AAJ, and the plaintiffs, and affirmed the district court’s remand order. The Court rejected defendant’s contention that plaintiffs “implicitly” proposed a joint trial by filing multiple lawsuits within a single jurisdiction, where plaintiffs had not asked that the claims be consolidated or coordinated for trial in any way.

Teague is just one of a series of cases in which CCL has defended plaintiffs’ right to sue in the forum of their choice and opposed efforts to remove cases to federal court under the mass action provision of CAFA.