Legal Opinion
Various v. Various
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 10, 2009No. 2:09-cv-00103PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.
The instant motion to remand was filed on behalf of 444 plaintiffs (“plaintiffs”) arguing that this Court must remand their actions to Mississippi state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants 1 have filed timely responses. For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
These cases originated in Mississippi state court and were removed to federal court by defendants Union Carbide and ConocoPhillips. The basis for removal was the allegedly fraudulent joinder of…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- James F. Boyer and Mary R. Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corporation, Kenneth Baldwin and Keith A. Kaiser. Appeal of James F. Boyer and Mary R. BoyerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Stephen B. Batoff, ph.d. v. State Farm Insurance Company, Leonard M. Paul, ed.dCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Boulder County Commissioners v. Suncor EnergyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2022
- Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Freitas v. McKesson Corp.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2012
- Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
- Willis v. BW IP International Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.