Okay, so you’d really like to remove that case that the other side filed in one of the notorious litigation tourist traps, but. . . . The insignificant in-state – that is to say, nondiverse – defendant was held not to be fraudulently joined, so your case was remanded to state court. What next?
Defense lawyers shouldn’t give up. We’ve written before about Bauman and the new personal jurisdiction arguments it may provide.
But other, less novel approaches also exist. How about forum non conveniens?
That’s the lesson of the recent California trial court decision in In re Accutane Drug Cases, 2014 WL 3579826, slip op. (Cal. Super. L.A. Co. July 21, 2014), obtained courtesy of Brian Ziska at Shook Hardy.
The defendant in Accutane was the same boat as a lot of defendants in California litigation. Plaintiffs from all over the country, literally from New York to Washington state, joined a factually insignificant in-state drug distributor (McKesson Corp.) for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction, and for that reason alone. We’ve blogged about this fact pattern before, and it’s undoubtedly duplicated in dozens of fraudulent joinder/remand cases from California.