Susan Kanter Sharon Plunk v. Warner-Lambert Co. And Pfizer Inc.

Good Law
2001 Daily Journal DAR 9819·265 F.3d 853·2001 WL 1028307·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7949·2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20137
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 10, 200199-16604California3,149 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Defendant Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) appeals a district court order awarding attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs Susan Kanter and Sharon Plunk (“Plaintiffs”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). The district court awarded those fees after Pfizer and its three co-defendants removed Plaintiffs’ state-law class action from California court and the district court remanded. Because we agree with the district court that removal was improper, we affirm its award of attorneys’ fees.

I

Pfizer, Warner-Lambert Company (“Warner-Lambert”), Care Technologies, Inc. (“Care Technologies”) and Hogil Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Hogil”) (collectively, “Defendants”) distribute and sell products for the treatment of head lice under the trademarks RID, NIX, CLEAR, and A-200. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in California Superior Court alleging that head lice have become so resistant to the active ingredients in Defendants’ products that the products “simply do not work” any more. Plaintiffs sought to represent a class composed of “all persons or entities in California who purchased NIX, RID, CLEAR, and/or A-200 within four years preceding the filing of this complaint ... and who experienced a failure of said produces)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.