Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson 478 U.S. 804, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 92, L. Ed. 2d 650 (1986)
The Thompsons, brought action against Merrell, alleging that their children suffered birth defects because the wife took drug manufactured by Merrell. Thompson brought claim based on negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability and fraud. They also claimed that Merrell violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (a Federal law). Merrell successfully moved the case from State Court to Federal Court based on federal question jurisdiction (28 USC § 1331). They argued that since Thompson was suing for violation of a Federal law, the case should be heard in a Federal Court. o Merrell knew that the local Federal judge had recently dismissed a similar case! Thompson claimed that the removal was improper and moved to remand the case back to State Court. Trial Court denied Thompson's motion. Thompson appealed. Federal Appellate Court reversed. Merrell appealed. US Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's decisions and sent the case back to State Court. o Supreme Court found that there wasn't sufficient federal question jurisdiction for the Federal Court to hear the case. Court found that federal question jurisdiction exists only if the plaintiff's right of relief depended necessarily on a substantial question of Federal law. In this case, it wasn't really the violation of the FDCA that Thompson was depending on to win, it was more that they were claiming negligence. They didn't need the FDCA to make their case. o The Supreme Court found that Congress never intended to create a private cause of action under FDCA. The fact that there may be a violation of FDCA by Merrell does not give Thompson the private
Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0
Federal cause of action under this Statute. The basic point of this case is that just because there may be a violation of some Federal law, there is no federal question jurisdiction, unless Congress specifically says that there is.