Raskas, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 13-1996 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed three separate class action suits alleging that defendants violated Missouri law and conspired with unknown third parties to deceive customers into throwing away medications after their expiration dates, knowing that the medications were safe and effective beyond the expiration date. Defendants appealed the district court's remand order holding that defendants failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). The court concluded that each defendant's affidavit detailing the total sales of their respective medications in Missouri met the amount in controversy requirement; even if it was highly improbable that plaintiffs would recover the amounts defendants have put into controversy, this did not meet the legally impossible standard; defendants were not required to provide a formula or methodology for calculating the potential damages more accurately, as the district court held; and defendants' affidavits were not inadmissible hearsay. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Case - Class Action Fairness Act. District court erred in concluding defendants failed to establish the amount in controversy was not met and erred in remanding the case to state court. In action under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act alleging that defendant drug companies conspired to deceive customers into throwing away medications after their expiration date, knowing the medications were still safe and effective, evidence as to total sales of their respective medications in Missouri meets the amount in controversy requirement. Claim that the amount was overinclusive because plaintiffs were attempting to recover damages for medications discarded and replaced only, failed, as proponent of federal jurisdiction must explain plausibly how the stakes exceed $5 million unless it is legally impossible. Highly improbable recovery does not meet the legally impossible standard. Hearsay argument is rejected, as burden of establishing amount in controversy is a pleading requirement not a demand for proof. [ June 25, 2013
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.