## Facts

- Brian Lynn, an OxyContin purchaser, filed a putative New Mexico class action against Purdue Pharma Co., alleging conduct that caused purchasers to pay inflated prices for OxyContin.
- The complaint asserted claims under New Mexico law, including alleged violations of the New Mexico Antitrust and Unfair Practices Act, and a claim for unjust enrichment.
- Lynn filed the action in New Mexico state court.
- Purdue removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
- After removal, Purdue moved to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), pointing to related OxyContin antitrust litigation centralized there.
- Purdue filed a notice advising the court about the existing OxyContin MDL activity in the Southern District of New York, including related cases already transferred there and additional cases under consideration, and stated its intent to seek tag-along treatment for Lynn’s case before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
- Lynn moved to remand the case to New Mexico state court, contending that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction (and that removal was therefore improper).
- The district court addressed the remand request and Purdue’s transfer request in deciding whether the case should remain in federal court at all and, if so, where it should proceed.

## Issues

1. Must a federal district court resolve a plaintiff’s motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction before granting a defendant’s request to transfer the removed case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) based on related MDL proceedings?
2. Did Purdue carry its burden to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction such that removal was proper and remand should be denied?

## Decision

- The court granted Lynn’s motion to remand the action to New Mexico state court.
- The court denied Purdue’s motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction exists before taking actions that assume authority over the case.
- The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction; when jurisdiction is not shown, remand is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- A court should address a remand motion raising subject-matter jurisdiction concerns before deciding discretionary matters such as a transfer under § 1404(a).
- The existence of related federal proceedings, including MDL activity and anticipated tag-along treatment, does not supply federal jurisdiction and does not permit retention of a case that belongs in state court.
- Section 1404(a) transfer presupposes a case properly in federal court; where the court lacks jurisdiction, transfer is not an available substitute for remand.

## Conclusion

Because Purdue did not establish that the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Lynn’s removed state-law class action, the District of New Mexico remanded the case to state court and denied Purdue’s request to transfer it to the Southern District of New York for coordination with the OxyContin MDL.


Lynn v. Purdue Pharma Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12404 (June 7, 2004)