Meta Mental Health Suit Moves Forward As MDL Looms
Meta Mental Health Suit Moves Forward As MDL Looms
Written By Aaron Keller; Editing by Dave Trumbore
Re-posted from Law360 (May 5, 2023, 8:29 PM EDT) — Despite the specter of multidistrict litigation, a federal judge in Connecticut on Friday refused to stay a mental health products liability lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., Snapchat and two Connecticut men, saying she was in “a better position than the MDL court” to decide unique remand issues under Connecticut law and unresolved doctrines in the Second Circuit.
Citing what U.S. District Judge Sarala V. Nagala called the “relatively novel doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder” in her ruling and order Friday, Snapchat and Meta, formerly known as Facebook, challenged the inclusion of design and marketing products liability claims alongside assault and battery claims against Connecticut defendants Reginald Sharp and Eddie Rodriguez. Both men are identified in court papers as registered sex offenders who separately assaulted a minor to whom they were “directed and connected” via suggestions on social media.
The lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court on Jan. 24, but Meta removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on March 2, noting 141 similar pending mental health-related cases on a multidistrict litigation docket created last October.
Court filings indicate that the companies hoped to separate the claims against Sharp and Rodriguez, to keep the case in federal court and to stay the proceeding until it was rolled into the burgeoning MDL docket.
The plaintiffs, however, sought to remand the case to state court because the inclusion of Sharp and Rodriguez as defendants tactically defeated diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Nagala said she wanted to sort out the remand question before staying the matter.
“Plaintiffs have a strong interest in having the motion to remand decided by this court because the motion turns on issues that are unresolved by the Second Circuit and require application of Connecticut law, and this court is in a better position than the MDL court to consider those issues,” Judge Nagala wrote Friday.
Quoting Kips Bay Endoscopy Ctr. PLLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. 
, Judge Nagala explained that the doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder can be used to uncouple defendants “where in reality there is no sufficient factual nexus among the claims to satisfy the permissive joinder standard.”
The plaintiffs contended that the Second Circuit “has not adopted the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine,” the judge noted. Or, even if it did apply, the plaintiffs claimed diversity jurisdiction was inappropriate because the individual defendants were properly joined, the judge recalled.
Those thorny issues were best handled locally and not by MDL authorities, Judge Nagala wrote, because they turned on Connecticut statutes and court rules.
She said she was in the “best position to apply” Connecticut laws and rules. She also said she was in the “best position to survey the approaches of other courts” in the Second Circuit to ascertain whether fraudulent misjoinder applied.
Judge Nagala further believed it would be “needlessly duplicative and burdensome” for the parties to reargue the same issues before the MDL court, the ruling indicates.
Discovery has already been stayed, the ruling states.
If she denies the motion to remand, Judge Nagala said she would likely stay the entire matter until the MDL panel decides whether to transfer the case elsewhere.
“We are very pleased with Judge Nagala’s decision,” said Michael R. Kennedy of Kennedy Johnson Schwab & Roberge LLC, an attorney for the plaintiffs, in response to a Law360 inquiry. “We believe this case was correctly filed in Connecticut Superior Court and that the District of Connecticut is the correct forum to decide issues of Connecticut law. A Connecticut jury should have the opportunity to hear and decide this case, and we look forward to litigating this case further on behalf of our clients.”
Attorneys for Meta and Snapchat, when reached through law firm spokespersons, either did not comment or did not reply to a request for comment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Brendan K. Nelligan and Michael R. Kennedy of Kennedy Johnson Schwab & Roberge LLC and Matthew P. Bergman, Laura Marquez-Garrett and Glenn Draper of the Social Media Victims Law Center.
Meta is represented by Matthew H. Geelan and Patrick M. Noonan of Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP and Ashley M. Simonsen, John J. DeBoy, Nathan E. Shafroth and Isaac D. Chaput of Covington & Burling LLP.
Snapchat is represented by James O. Craven of Wiggin and Dana LLP and Jonathan H. Blavin, Lauren Bell and Victoria A. Degtyareva of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.
The case is V.V. et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 3:23-cv-00284, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
To read more go to: Click Here and get your Law 360 subscription today to view more great legal content.
If you or a loved one have been involved in a personal or product injury, or harmed by a defective products; contact Serna & Associates PLLC Today. Click Here to learn more or call: 1-877-822-1212 attorneys standing by.