Background
Alice Stills sued Mead Johnson, Abbott Laboratories, and Pennsylvania Hospital in Pennsylvania state court on behalf of her prematurely born child. She alleged that the child developed necrotizing enterocolitis after receiving cow’s-milk-based infant formula at the hospital and that the hospital failed to warn parents or adopt protective policies addressing the risk.
After an initial removal and remand, the case proceeded through discovery in state court. Pennsylvania Hospital was dismissed on preliminary objections, and Abbott removed the case again. The federal district court denied Stills’s renewed motion to remand, reasoning that she had fraudulently joined the nondiverse hospital because her litigation conduct showed no genuine, good-faith intent to pursue the hospital to judgment. The court certified that novel jurisdictional ruling for interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit held that fraudulent joinder cannot rest on a plaintiff’s perceived lack of intent to prosecute claims against a nondiverse defendant. Fraudulent joinder is limited to two circumstances: false allegations of jurisdictional facts or claims for which, after resolving all factual and legal issues in the plaintiff’s favor, there is no possibility of success.
The district court therefore erred by examining the intensity of the plaintiffs’ discovery, their litigation strategy, and counsel’s conduct in other cases. A plaintiff’s motive for joining a defendant does not establish fraudulent joinder when the asserted claim is colorable. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s subjective motive or perceived lack of enthusiasm in prosecuting a claim is not an independent basis for fraudulent joinder.
- Fraudulent joinder requires either false jurisdictional allegations or an utterly groundless claim against the nondiverse defendant.
- Federal courts may not infer removal jurisdiction by evaluating how aggressively a plaintiff conducted discovery or managed litigation in state court.
Why It Matters
The decision confines fraudulent joinder to established, objective grounds and prevents removal jurisdiction from turning on a federal court’s assessment of litigation strategy. It also protects plaintiffs’ ability to choose a state forum by joining a nondiverse defendant against whom they have a colorable claim, regardless of any jurisdictional motive.
For defendants in multidistrict litigation, the ruling forecloses an intent-based route to federal court even when a plaintiff’s prosecution of claims against a forum defendant appears limited. Any broader adjustment to diversity and removal jurisdiction, the court said, must come from Congress.