United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
T. Boffetti, Esq.
Daniel Deane, Esq.
Cusker Gonzalez, Esq.
A. Vicinanzo, Esq.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Barbadoro United States District Judge
State of New Hampshire has sued Purdue Pharma based on
misrepresentations Purdue allegedly made to the state's
consumers concerning the risks and benefits of the
company's opioid pain medications. The State filed its
complaint in Merrimack County Superior Court and Purdue later
removed the case to this court. Purdue argues that the court
has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act (“CAFA”), but the State has
challenged Purdue's jurisdictional argument in a motion
to remand. The current dispute turns on whether the case is
removable under CAFA as a “class action.”
least 20 years, Purdue has manufactured, marketed, and sold
opioid pain medications in New Hampshire and
elsewhere.During this period, Purdue spent hundreds
of millions of dollars promoting its medications in ways that
falsely and misleadingly minimized the risks of opioid
addiction and overstated the benefits Purdue's
medications could provide. As a direct result, opioid
addiction, overdoses, and deaths have exploded, to the point
where the Center for Disease Control has described the
current situation as a “public health epidemic.”
Doc. No. 4 at 8.
State contends that Purdue's false and misleading
marketing campaign has injured the State, its municipalities,
and its consumers. It asserts claims for violations of New
Hampshire's Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”),
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 358-A; violations of the New Hampshire
Medicaid Fraud and False Claims Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. §
167:61-b, Public Nuisance, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraudulent
or Negligent Misrepresentation. The State seeks to recover
damages for its own injuries as well as injunctive relief,
civil penalties, restitution, abatement, and attorneys'
fees on behalf of itself, its municipalities, and its
STANDARD OF REVIEW
State bases its remand motion on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),
which requires a federal court to remand a removed case if
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
has responded by claiming that CAFA gives the court
jurisdiction to consider the State's complaint. A
defendant who removes a case under CAFA must plausibly allege
that each of CAFA's jurisdictional requirements have been
satisfied. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v.
Owens,135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014). If the plaintiff
disputes the evidentiary basis for the defendant's
assertion of jurisdiction, the defendant must also establish
a “reasonable probability” that the facts support
the defendant's jurisdictional claim. See Pazul v.
Tough Mudder,819 F.3d 548, 552 (1st Cir. 2016) (amount
in controversy requirement). At that ...