EAST ST. LOUIS – U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn rejected Madison County jurisdiction in a wrongful death suit against Mead Johnson on Jan. 20, finding attorney David Cates of Swansea incorrectly identified the defendant as an Illinois business.
“This court has no doubt that the Mead defendants have shown they are citizens of Delaware and Indiana, not Illinois,” McGlynn wrote.
Although he kept the case, he might not keep it long.
Later on Jan. 20, plaintiff Abigail Grosshuesch of Florida advised him she wouldn’t oppose transfer to district court in Chicago.
She sued Mead Johnson and its nutrition company in Madison County in October, claiming milk product Enfamil fatally injured her daughter Isabella.
The complaint carried names of three Chicago lawyers and four in Connecticut.
They claimed Isabella did well on mother’s milk after birth at a Naperville hospital on Oct. 13, 2013.
They claimed Isabella was fed Enfamil on Oct. 23, developed necrotizing enterocolitis, and died on Nov. 1.
“A diet based exclusively on human milk and human milk based products provides all the nutrition necessary to support preterm and low birth weight infants without the elevated risk of necrotizing enterocolitis associated with cow’s milk based products,” the complaint stated.
Mead Johnson removed the complaint to district court in November, asserting diversity jurisdiction as a business in Evansville, Ind.
Mead Johnson moved for transfer to district court in Chicago on Dec. 6, claiming no facts or events occurred in the Southern District.
Cates, whose name didn’t appear on the Madison County complaint, entered an appearance and moved for remand on Dec. 17.
He claimed Mead Johnson provided no support for claiming Indiana citizenship.
He claimed it repeatedly held itself out as an Illinois company with its principal place of business in Chicago.
Mead Johnson counsel Anthony Anscombe of Chicago opposed remand on Jan. 7, claiming management functions in Illinois ceased in 2018.
He claimed Evansville is Mead Johnson’s historic home where it manufactures liquid products and controls operations.
That satisfied McGlynn.
He wrote that diversity jurisdiction provides out of state litigants with access to federal court for fear that they might otherwise suffer from local prejudice.
“But where a defendant is sued in his home state, the local prejudice element is absent and thus such a defendant should not be able to remove the case to federal court,” McGlynn wrote.
“It is true that federal courts should interpret the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubt in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum.
“However, when a plaintiff’s choice is not his or her home forum, the presumption in the plaintiff’s favor applies with less force.”
He found Mead Johnson rebutted the allegations of the complaint and satisfied the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.