Donlin v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP et al
| Christopher Donlin and Christopher J. Donlin |
| Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc and Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP |
| 3:2022cv00833 |
| June 30, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Michael P Shea |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Set Deadlines: Status Report due by 10/27/2022 (Johnson, D.) |
Filing 17
ORDER. The #16 motion to stay pending settlement discussions is hereby GRANTED. The case is stayed for 90 days, i.e., until October 26, 2022. The parties shall file a status report on or before October 27, 2022 regarding the progress of their settlement negotiations. In the event that the parties are unable to reach a resolution by the end of the stay period, the parties shall resume their briefing of the jurisdictional issues identified in ECF No. 13, following the schedule set forth: defendants shall file their brief by November 17, 2022, and plaintiff may file a response by December 8, 2022. The briefs shall abide by the page limits identified in ECF No. 13. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/28/2022. (Wong, Qing Wai)
|
| Filing 16 Joint MOTION to Stay Pending Settlement Discussions by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP.Responses due by 8/17/2022 (Ruggiero, William) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER. The #14 motion for extension of time is hereby GRANTED. Defendants shall file their brief on jurisdiction by August 8, 2022. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/22/2022. (Wong, Qing Wai)
|
| Filing 14 MOTION for Extension of Time until August 8, 2022 to File Jurisdictional Briefing by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP. (Ruggiero, William) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER. It is not clear whether the #1 Notice of Removal states an adequate basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. "If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and no party has called the matter to the court's attention, the court has the duty to dismiss the action sua sponte." Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2009). Plaintiff, who is the Administrator of the Estate of Sushil Abraham, filed the case in state court and, on July 1, 2022, defendants removed the case to federal court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that defendants "refuse[d] to comply with the Probate Court Order," requiring defendants to sell the "Astrazeneca Stock" and to give the proceeds from the sale to Administrator of the Estate. ECF No. 1-1 at 15-16. Plaintiff now seeks to enforce that order, among other relief. Id. at 20 (Plaintiff seeks "[a] Court Order, pursuant to C.G.S. 45a-24, that Defendants Comply with the Probate Order by a date certain.").Defendants argue that this court has subject matter jurisdiction because this dispute is governed by ERISA, ECF No. 1 at 2-3, or, in the alternative, the parties are diverse, id. at 3-4. There are three potential issues with the grounds for subject matter jurisdiction asserted by the defendants. First, it is not clear that there is diversity jurisdiction because the probate exception may apply. Under the probate exception, "[f]ederal courts may not probate or annul a will or administer an estate" but "if the other requirements for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction are met... district judges must exercise their subject matter jurisdiction in cases involving other... probate related matters." Culwick v. Wood, 384 F. Supp. 3d 328, 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Fed. Prac. & Proc. 3610). "[T]he probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent's estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction." Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311 (2006). Here, a search of the Connecticut Probate Courts' dockets (http://www.ctprobate.gov/Pages/Case-Lookup.aspx) indicates that the probate case for the Estate of Sushil Abraham is ongoing. Thus, the adjudication of this claim may interfere with an ongoing probate proceeding and therefore the probate exception may apply. Second, it is not clear whether there is federal question jurisdiction through ERISA. Defendants state that plaintiff's claims are completely preempted by ERISA because the plaintiff ultimately seeks "recovery of benefits and other relief under" the employee benefit plans controlled by ERISA. ECF No. #1 at 2. To determine whether a claim is completely preempted by ERISA, thereby transforming the claim into an ERISA claim, courts apply a two part test: "claims are completely preempted by ERISA if they are brought (i) by an individual [who] at some point in time, could have brought his claim under ERISA 502(a)(1)(B), and (ii) under circumstances in which there is no other independent legal duty that is implicated by a defendant's actions." Wurtz v. Rawlings Co., LLC, 761 F.3d 232, 241 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Applied here, it is not clear to the Court without further briefing that the plaintiff's claims are completely preempted by ERISA. Third, even if the Court determines that the plaintiff's claims are completely preempted by ERISA, therefore conferring federal question jurisdiction, there remains a question of whether the probate exception also applies to federal question cases. See In the matter of Boisseau, No. 516CV0549LEKATB, 2017 WL 395124, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2017) (noting Circuit split over whether the probate exception applies to federal question jurisdiction and stating that the Second Circuit has not addressed the issue); id. at *3 (finding that the probate exception applies to federal question cases, including cases arising under ERISA).Because the defendants have removed this case from state court, it is the defendants' burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Jana Master Fund, Ltd. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 490 F. Supp. 2d 325, 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("The general rule is that when a defendant seeks to remove a case to federal court, the removing party bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction."). Thus, within 21 days of this order, defendants shall file a brief explaining why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case and addressing the issues raised above. Defendants' brief is limited to 25 pages. Plaintiff may file a response within 21 days of the defendants' filing. Plaintiff's response brief is limited to 25 pages. No replies are allowed. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/7/2022. (Wong, Qing Wai)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER. The #6 motion for extension of time is hereby GRANTED. Defendants' response to plaintiff's complaint is due August 8, 2022.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/7/2022. (Wong, Qing Wai)
|
| Answer deadline updated for Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc to 8/8/2022; Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP to 8/8/2022. (Johnson, D.) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE TO COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO THE BAR OF THE US DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT Re: Local Rule 83.1 Admission of Attorneys. The above captioned case has been received and filed in our court. Please see our Local Rule 83.1 regarding Admission of Attorneys that is available on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. You will not be added to the case, nor will we accept further filings until you have complied with Local Rule 83.1. If you have any questions about this procedure, please contact the Clerk's Office. Signed by Clerk on 07/01/2022. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #6 MOTION for Extension of Time until August 8, 2022 to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, #3 Notice (Other) filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, #9 Protective Order, #7 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, #2 Notice of Appearance filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, #5 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, #4 Notice (Other) filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, #8 Electronic Filing Order Signed by Clerk on 07/01/2022. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order on Removed Cases) (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 9
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 07/01/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 8
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 07/01/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 7
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 8/30/2022. Discovery due by 12/31/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 2/4/2023. Signed by Clerk on 07/01/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time until August 8, 2022 to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint #1 Notice of Removal, by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP. (Ruggiero, William) |
| Filing 5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP identifying Corporate Parent Astrazeneca, PLC for Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP. (Ruggiero, William) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP of Statement Pursuant to United States District Court District of Connecticut Standing Order on Removed Cases (Ruggiero, William) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP of No Pending Motions (Ruggiero, William) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by William C. Ruggiero on behalf of Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP (Ruggiero, William) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc from Connecticut Superior Court, case number NNH-CV-22-6124084-S. Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ACTDC-6984287, filed by Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-D)(Ruggiero, William) Modified on 7/1/2022 to correct parties (Anastasio, F.). |
| Judge Michael P. Shea added. (Freberg, B) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
