The opinion of the court was delivered by: Schiller, J.
These cases arise from allegedly fatal defects in pharmaceutical patches used to treat chronic pain. Plaintiffs originally brought five separate wrongful death actions in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Defendants removed these cases despite the presence of a Pennsylvania co-defendant, Mylan, Inc. They argue that Plaintiffs fraudulently joined Mylan to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' motions to remand are consolidated before this Court and are ripe for disposition. The Court will grant these motions for the reasons stated below.
Plaintiffs are proceeding on behalf of five individuals who died while using pain-treatment patches: David Doran, Kelley Reese, Martin Lalka, Stephen Apple, and Christopher Tisch (collectively, "Decedents").*fn1 In each case, the Decedent's patch was from a line of generic pharmaceutical products known as the Mylan Fentanyl Transdermal System ("MFTS"). (Defs.' Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. to Remand [Mylan Opp'n] 2-3.) Plaintiffs allege that due to its faulty design, the MFTS patch delivered a fatal dose of fentanyl to Decedents. (See, e.g., Compl. of Amy Doran, et al. [Doran Compl.] ¶ 101.)
Fentanyl is a potent painkiller. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants designed the MFTS patch, which is a generic alternative to Duragesic, to release controlled amounts of fentanyl through the patient's skin in accordance with the dosage prescribed by the patient's physician. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 60-61; Mot. to Remand Ex. 1 [SEC Form 10-K of Mylan, Inc. for 2009] 6.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' failure to incorporate a "rate control membrane" in the MFTS patch's design resulted in Decedents receiving fatal overdoses of fentanyl. (See Doran Compl. ¶ 80.)
Plaintiffs' Complaints describe nine causes of action, including negligence in advertising, promoting and labeling the MFTS patch, and negligent failure to warn based on Defendants' failure to apprise the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the public of the risk the patch posed. (Id. ¶¶ 54, 70.) The Complaints generally do not differentiate between Mylan, Inc. ("Mylan"), Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("MPI") and Mylan Technologies, Inc. ("MTI"). All five Complaints allege claims against these three Defendants.
Mylan is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. MPI is based and incorporated in West Virginia, while MTI is incorporated in West Virginia and has its principal place of business in Vermont. (Mylan Opp'n 4.) Defendants contend that Mylan did not design, manufacture, market or distribute the fentanyl patches at issue. (Id. at 2.) Rather, Mylan's two wholly-owned subsidiaries, MTI and MPI, manufactured and distributed the MFTS patches. (Id. at 4.) Mylan, according to Defendants, is merely a holding company whose involvement with the MFTS patch was limited to providing "administrative support and regulatory assistance" to its subsidiaries. (Id. at 8.)
Plaintiffs assert that this support and assistance constitutes tortious conduct which renders Mylan liable on Plaintiffs' failure to warn claims. (Mot. to Remand 8-12.) To support this position, Plaintiffs provided deposition testimony by a former Mylan employee, Frank Sisto, takenin a case pending in New Jersey. (Id. at 8; Mot. to Remand Ex. 2 [Sept. 16, 2010 Deposition of Frank Sisto] ("Sisto Dep.").) Sisto served as Mylan's global head of regulatory affairs until his retirement in March 2009. (Sisto Dep. 5-6.) He testified that he coordinated regulatory affairs for the Mylan entities, acting as the companies' primary contact with the FDA. (Id. at 7-8.) Sisto was also involved with the labeling of the MFTS patch. (Id. at 14-15.) Though he testified that he had "very, very little" to do with "actually putting that labeling together," Sisto confirmed that he reviewed information for a labeling supplement Mylan submitted to the FDA regarding the MFTS patch. (Id.)
Plaintiffs submit that Mylan was responsible for the MFTS patch's label and for updating the patch's product warnings. (Mot. to Remand 11.) Defendants dispute the extent to which Mylan or Sisto were involved with the MFTS patch project, but agree Sisto's testimony "indicates that Mylan Inc. provided assistance to [MTI] in maintaining regulatory compliance for the MFTS by maintaining and coordinating communications with . . . the Food and Drug Administration." (Mylan Opp'n 19-20.)
Plaintiffs' actions were consolidated before this Court for resolution of their motions to remand on December 14, 2010. Defendants filed a global opposition on January 7, 2011.
A defendant seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction may only remove a case to federal court if "none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Nevertheless, district courts may disregard a defendant's citizenship for jurisdictional purposes upon a showing of fraudulent joinder. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 216 (3d Cir. 2006). Joinder is fraudulent if either (1) a reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim, or (2) a good-faith intention to prosecute the action against the defendant in question is lacking. Id. (citing Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 32 (3d Cir. 1985)). The removing defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate. See Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921); Boyer v. Snap-on Tools Corp., 93 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990).
The Court will accept Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations as true and resolve "any uncertainties as to the state of controlling substantive law in favor of the plaintiff." Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 217 (quoting Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 851-52 (3d Cir. 1992)). The Court may look beyond the pleadings to determine whether joinder was fraudulent. See id.at 219. However, the Court will not "step from a threshold jurisdictional issue into a decision on the merits." See Weaver v. Conrail, Inc., Civ. A. No. 09-5592, 2010 WL 2773382, at *6 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2010) (citing Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 218).
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to advance viable claims against Mylan and have not pursued their claims ...