PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
IN RE: PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP, 	)
BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL 	)
VENTILATOR PRODUCTS 	) 	Master Docket: Misc. No. 21-1230
LITIGATION 	)
)
) 	MDL No. 3014
This Document Relates to: 	)
)
Pineda-Lam v. Philips, et. al, #25-1644 	)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. 	Introduction
Pending before the court is a motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of Contra
Costa County, California (“state court”) filed on behalf of plaintiff Fatima Pineda-Lam (“Pineda-
Lam”) (ECF No. 15). Philips RS North America LLC, Respironics California LLC and Philips
Holding USA Inc. (collectively, “Philips”) filed a brief in opposition to the motion (ECF No.
22), with attached declarations. The motion is ripe for decision.
II. 	Procedural History
In August 2025, Pineda-Lam filed a complaint in the state court (ECF No. 15-1). Named
as defendants were: (1) Philips RS North America LLC; (2) Respironics California LLC; (3)
Philips Holding USA Inc.; and (4) Apria Healthcare, LLC (“Apria”). The state court complaint
did not contain any averments about the citizenship of the parties.
Philips filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). In the notice, Philips
Case 2:21-mc-01230-JFC Document 3711 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 5

2
averred that Pineda-Lam is a citizen of California; each of the Philips entities named as
defendants is a citizen of Delaware and Massachusetts; and Apria is a citizen of Delaware and
Indiana.
Pineda-Lam filed the pending motion for remand. Before the motion was decided, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred the case to this court for pretrial
proceedings as part of the Philips MDL and it was assigned Civil Case No. 25-1644.
III. 	Discussion
Pineda-Lam challenges subject-matter jurisdiction in the federal courts. Pineda-Lam
contends that there is not complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendants. The
parties agree that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. More specifically, Pineda-Lam
contends that Philips’ notice of removal failed to meet its burden with respect to the citizenship
of Respironics California LLC and Apria. The court will address the citizenship of each entity.
A. Diversity of citizenship legal principles
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction over
cases that involve greater than $75,000 in controversy and are between citizens of different
states. The statute requires “‘complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants,’ even
though only minimal diversity is constitutionally required. This means that, unless there is some
other basis for jurisdiction, ‘no plaintiff [may] be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.’”
Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Lincoln Prop.
Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005), and Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412,
419 (3d Cir. 2010)).
Case 2:21-mc-01230-JFC Document 3711 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 5

3
The analysis to determine citizenship varies based upon the kind of entity involved.
Pineda-Lam does not contest that Respironics California LLC and Apria Healthcare LLC are
limited liability companies (“LLCs”). As explained in Okpor v. CBS News Broadcasting, No.
25-CV-0501, 2025 WL 1094254, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2025):
An individual [such as Pineda-Lam] is a citizen of the state where [she] is
domiciled, meaning the state where [she] is physically present and intends to
remain. See Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652 F.3d 340, 344 (3d Cir. 2011). A
corporation is a citizen of the state in which it was incorporated as well as where it
has its principal place of business. See U.S.C. § 1332(c). In contrast, “the
citizenship of an LLC [or other unincorporated entity] is determined by the
citizenship of its members.” Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 420. “[W]here an LLC has, as
one of its members, another LLC, the citizenship of unincorporated associations
must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be
to determine the citizenship of the LLC.” Id. (internal quotations omitted); see also
Voorhees v. Tolia, 761 F. App'x 88, 91 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (“As for the
entity defendants, they are limited liability companies and are deemed citizens of
every state of which one of their members is a citizen.”).
Id. at *4.
In Skywark v. Healthbridge Management., LLC, No. 15-00058, 2015 WL 13621058
(W.D. Pa. July 22, 2015), the court explained: “When diversity jurisdiction is invoked in a case
in which a limited liability company is a party, the court needs to know the citizenship of each
member of the company.” Id. at *3. The court can consider a declaration to establish citizenship
and “if it appears at any time before the final judgment that diversity is not complete, such as
during discovery, this Court will remand.” Id.
B. 	Application to this case
1. 	Respironics California LLC
Pineda-Lam did not introduce any evidence with respect to the citizenship of Respironics
California LLC. Pineda-Lam attached documents purporting to show that two predecessor
Case 2:21-mc-01230-JFC Document 3711 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 5

4
entities to Respironics California LLC, namely (1) Respironics California Inc.; and (2) InVentive
Technologies, Inc. were citizens of California. Pineda-Lam, however, did not name the
predecessor entities as defendants and their citizenship is irrelevant. Advoc. Tr. LLC v. Fed.
Express Corp., No. 2:25-CV-03363, 2025 WL 2779336, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2025) (“When
two or more corporations merge, the citizenship of ‘the surviving entity is controlling [ ] [and]
the citizenship of the predecessor company becomes irrelevant.’ 13F Charles A. Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3623 (3d ed.) (citing cases).”).
Philips submitted a declaration by James Durchak (“Durchak”), the Director of Risk
Management of Philips North America LLC (ECF No. 22-1). Durchak testified, under penalty
of perjury, about the multiple levels of LLC ownership with respect to the Philips entities named
as defendants in this case: (1) Respironics California LLC has one member, Philips RS North
America LLC; (2) Philips RS North America LLC has one member, Philips RS North America
Holding Corporation; and (3) Philips RS North America Holding Corporation is a Delaware
corporation with a principal place of business in Massachusetts. Respironics California LLC is,
therefore, deemed to be a citizen of Delaware and Massachusetts. Pineda-Lam presented no
contrary evidence. The court finds that Respironics California LLC is a citizen of Delaware and
Massachusetts.
2. 	Apria Healthcare LLC
Pineda-Lam did not introduce any evidence with respect to the citizenship of Apria.
Pineda-Lam merely argues that Philips failed to meet its burden to establish Apria’s citizenship.
Philips submitted a declaration from Doreen Bellucci (“Bellucci”), Senior Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary of Apria, with respect to the citizenship of Apria (ECF No. 22-2).
Case 2:21-mc-01230-JFC Document 3711 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 5

5
Bellucci represented, under penalty of perjury, that she had personal knowledge of the facts
asserted in the declaration.
As set forth in the declaration: (1) Apria Healthcare LLC is an LLC whose sole member
is another LLC, Apria Healthcare Group LLC; (2) Apria Healthcare Group LLC’s sole member
is another LLC, Apria Holdco LLC; (3) Apria Holdco LLC’s sole member is a corporation,
Apria, Inc.; (4) Apria, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in
Indianapolis, Indiana. Apria, Inc. is a citizen of both Delaware and Indiana. The court finds,
therefore, that Apria Healthcare LLC is deemed to be a citizen of Delaware and Indiana.
IV. 	Conclusion
The court concludes that Philips demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, based
on the record in this case, that the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. The federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.
Pineda-Lam’s motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 15) will be
denied.
An appropriate order will be entered.
Dated: November 12, 2025
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Senior United States District Court Judge
Case 2:21-mc-01230-JFC Document 3711 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 5