Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist · ¶50
But this Court's precedents do not support the lower courts' more recent approach. As I read them, this Court's “fraudulent joinder” precedents concerned only whether the plaintiff avoided federal diversity jurisdiction by bad faith or actual fraud—such as lying about a party's conduct or citizenship. See Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 200 U. S., at 218 (asking whether the plaintiff “attempt[ed] to commit a fraud upon the jurisdiction of the Federal courts”); Illinois Central R. Co. v. Sheegog, 215 U. S. 308, 316 (1909) (asking whether a claim was “fraudulent and false”); Mecom v. Fitz simmons Drilling Co., 284 U. S. 183, 190 (1931) (asking whether the plaintiff committed “actual fraud”). These precedents were limited to cases of “extreme abuse.” Mur riel-Don Coal Co. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 790 F. Supp. 2d 590, 596 (ED Ky. 2011) (Thapar, J.). Unlike the lower courts' more recent…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.