Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Curtis Ulleseit, et al.

Defendants may remove civil cases from state to federal court when the parties are “completely diverse,” meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than each defendant. To destroy diversity and thwart defendants’ right to a federal forum, plaintiffs often name non-diverse defendants in lawsuits even though the claims against those defendants are wholly meritless. To protect the federal courts’ jurisdiction, this Court long ago approved the “fraudulent joinder” doctrine, which instructs district courts to disregard non-diverse defendants, and assert jurisdiction, when the plaintiff lacks a reasonable basis for naming those defendants in the suit. The lower courts have struggled to create appropriate procedures for determining whether a given defendant is fraudulently joined, and thus should be disregarded, for diversity purposes. The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that district courts may consider facts outside the pleadings, but should perform only a “summary inquiry” of such factual materials. This rule avoids lengthy discovery and hearings at the jurisdictional stage. The Ninth Circuit has significantly broadened the “summary inquiry” rule, however, extending it to pure issues of federal law. In this case, the Ninth Circuit held that district courts may perform only a “summary review” of federal law to decide if claims against a given defendant are legally meritless due to being preempted. The question presented is: Whether courts may refuse to perform more than a summary inquiry to determine if defendants are fraudulently joined due to a pure issue of federal law.