Second Circuit Revives Lawsuit Against Ohio Drugmaker, Saying Judge Mishandled Jurisdictional Query
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday in a decision by Judge Michael Park, revived a lawsuit to recover $1.7 million in unpaid debt from Ohio-based drugmaker Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Inc., saying a district court judge had improperly dismissed the case without first determining a key jurisdictional issue.
November 25, 2019 at 05:27 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday revived a lawsuit to recover $1.7 million in unpaid debt from Ohio-based drugmaker Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Inc., saying a district court judge had improperly dismissed the case without first determining a key jurisdictional issue.
The ruling, from a three-judge panel in an opinion by Judge Michael Park of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, reinstated a 2017 suit filed by Navidea creditor Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences LLC and its Holland & Knight attorneys, claiming that the company was still owed the money under a 2012 loan agreement.
Originally filed in New York state court, Navidea, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dublin, Ohio, removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Judge Valerie Caproni later dismissed it for lack of Article III. The decision followed confusion on both sides as to whether there was a complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, which would have allowed the district court to hear the case.
According to the Second Circuit opinion, Caproni conducted "limited informal jurisdictional discovery" and assumed subject-matter jurisdiction because she had no "good faith basis to believe that there is not complete diversity" among the parties.
Park said Navidea's original notice of transfer did not resolve the diversity issue, and Caproni should have exercised her discretion to order full jurisdictional discovery.
"Here, none of the underlying state-court pleadings, the notice of removal, or the record as a whole reflected that the parties were completely diverse," Park wrote in a 13-page opinion. "Thus, the district court erred by proceeding to the merits of this case. We therefore remand so that the district court can exercise its discretion to conduct further proceedings, if any, as it deems appropriate."
Park was joined in the ruling by Chief Judge Robert Katzmann and Judge john Walker Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a senior judge on the on the court.
Among the considerations, Park said, was the citizenship of Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund, a Cayman Islands limited partnership and one of three members in the Platinum-Montaur LLC.
For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Park said, partnerships take on the citizenship of all their members, meaning that Platinum-Montaur is a citizen of every state of which PPVA's partners are citizens.
Navidea did not identify those partners in its notice of removal from state court, and it was later determined that one of PPVA's partners was an onshore feeder fund, which took the citizenship of its approximately 220 members.
If any one of those members was a citizen of Delaware or Ohio, Park said, it would "destroy diversity of citizenship between Platinum-Montaur and Navidea."
In his ruling, Park noted that courts' discretion to conduct more thorough discovery on diversity "should be exercised with caution," but said the circumstances warranted such a step.
"Nonetheless, even when the citizenship of an LLC or LP is in question, a district court may not proceed to the merits without first determining whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction," Park said.
Attorneys for Navidea and Platinum-Montaur were not immediately available Monday afternoon to comment on the decision.
Platinum-Montaur is represented by Robert Burns, Warren Gluck, Barbara Parlin and Kathryn B. Daly of Holland & Knight in New York.
Navidea is represented by Robert Folland of Barnes & Thornburg in Columbus, Ohio.
The case, on remand, is captioned Platinum-Montaur v. Navidea.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMajor Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readLawsuit Alleging $23 Million Contract Breach Against Biogen Moves Forward
Bristol-Myers Squibb Wins Dismissal of $6.4 Billion Lawsuit Alleging Intentional Delay of Cancer Drug
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1What Are Forbidden Sexual Relations With Clients?
- 2AEDI Takeaways: Demystifying Hype, Changing Caselaw & Harvey’s CEO Talks State of Industry
- 3New England Law | Boston Announces New Dean
- 4Nordic Capital Plans to Acquire IP Management Solutions Provider Anaqua
- 5Criminalization of Homelessness Is Not the Solution
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250