In Re: Benjamin Moore & Co., Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Nl Indus., Inc. Valhi, Inc., Holder of 10% or More of Nl Publicly-Traded Stock Tremont Corp., Holder of 10% or More of Nl Publicly-Traded Stock Sherwin-Williams Co., 309 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re: Benjamin Moore & Co., Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Nl Indus., Inc. Valhi, Inc., Holder of 10% or More of Nl Publicly-Traded Stock Tremont Corp., Holder of 10% or More of Nl Publicly-Traded Stock Sherwin-Williams Co., 309 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“thus, without detracting from the force of the tapscott principle that fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs is no more permissible than fraudulent misjoinder of defendants to circumvent diversity jurisdiction, we do not reach its appli- cation in this case.”
58 citation events (58 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: EMET, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (txwd, 2021-10-07) · Strongest negative: Brazina v. Paul Revere Life Insurance (cand, 2003-04-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Brazina v. Paul Revere Life Insurance
N.D. Cal. · 2003 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002) (''[I]t might be concluded that misjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction”); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 630-31 (5th Cir.2002) (”[W]ithout detracting from the force of the Tapscott principle that fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs is no more permissible than fraudulent misjoin-der of defendants to circumvent diversity jurisdiction, we do not reach its application in this case.”).
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) EMET, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
W.D. Tex. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
thus, without detracting from the force of the tapscott principle that fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs is no more permissible than fraudulent misjoinder of defendants to circumvent diversity jurisdiction, we do not reach its appli- cation in this case.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Texas Instruments Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
N.D. Tex. · 2010 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
mjost district courts within this circuit have taken the position that the fifth circuit has adopted, or at least appears to have adopted, tapscott.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lopez v. Spur Energy Partners LLC
D.N.M. · 2024 · confidence medium
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 436 F.3d at 532-33; In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2002)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams MD v. Homeland Insurance
5th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
In reaching that conclusion, the only authority the district court cited was our suggestion, in an opinion denying mandamus relief, that “it might be concluded that misjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction.” In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). 9 9 The dissenting opinion reaches that conclusion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Regent Preparatory School of Oklahoma v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
N.D. Okla. · 2020 · confidence medium
In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation, 591 F.3d 613, 622 (8th Cir. 2010); In re Benjamin Moore & 6 Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2002); California Dump Truck Owners Assoc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 24 Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lee v. Parker Wrecker Service, LLC
N.D. Miss. · 2020 · confidence medium
Fraudulent Misjoinder Standard “[M]isjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction.” In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Tapscott v. Mississippi Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) De La Rosa v. Reliable, Inc.
D.N.M. · 2015 · confidence medium
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 436 F.3d 529, 532-33 (5th Cir.2006); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McDaniel v. Loya
D.N.M. · 2015 · confidence medium
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 436 F.3d 529, 532-33 (5th Cir.2006); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Honey Holdings I, Ltd. v. Alfred L. Wolff, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 2015 · confidence medium
Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aguayo v. AMCO Insurance
D.N.M. · 2014 · confidence medium
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 436 F.3d at 532-33; In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ullman v. Safeway Insurance
D.N.M. · 2013 · confidence medium
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 436 F.3d 529, 532-33 (5th Cir.2006); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lafalier v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
10th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 436 F.3d 529, 532-33 (5th Cir.2006); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. American General Life Insurance
N.D. Tex. · 2009 · confidence medium
In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002) (stating that, as part of its jurisdictional determination, a district court should consider whether misjoinder of a non-diverse party defeats diversity jurisdiction and citing Tapscott)', see also In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 630-31 (5th Cir.2002) (concluding that appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s ruling on misjoinder was lacking while noting that such conclusion did not ”detract[] from the force of the Tapscott principle that fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs is no more permissible than fraudu…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Osborn v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
E.D. Cal. · 2004 · confidence medium
See In re: Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002); and see In re: Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 630-31 (5th Cir.2002). 9 Since the Tapscott and Benjamin Moore decisions, district courts in the Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits, being bound, have followed the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine, as has a district court in the Seventh Circuit.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ross v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of America
S.D. Miss. · 2004 · confidence medium
In re: Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002)(holding that “mis-joinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reed v. American Medical Security Group, Inc.
S.D. Miss. · 2004 · confidence medium
What the court does conclude, however, is that the claims of these plaintiffs have been fraudulently misjoined with the claims of their co-plaintiffs. 8 In light of the Fifth Circuit’s observation in In Re: Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002), that “it might be said that misjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction,” the undersigned, as well as a number of other judges in this district and in the Northern District of Mississippi, have concluded that in this circuit, misjoinder is a viable basis for removal in a proper case.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sweeney v. Sherwin Williams Co.
S.D. Miss. · 2004 · confidence medium
In Re: Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002) (holding that “misjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation
E.D. Pa. · 2003 · confidence medium
Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 1996) (overruled on other grounds); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002); In re Diet Drugs, 1999 WL 554584 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weaver v. American Home Products Corp.
E.D. Pa. · 2003 · confidence medium
Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir.1996) (overruled on other grounds); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002); In re Diet Drugs, 1999 WL 554584 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jamison v. Purdue Pharma Co.
S.D. Miss. · 2003 · confidence medium
Co., 1997 WL 703354 (E.D.La.1997)); see also Ren-Dan Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 952 F.Supp. 370 (E.D.La.1997) (noting that the Fifth Circuit has yet to address the procedural misjoinder doctrine, distinguishing Tapscott on its facts, and refusing to allow application of the procedural misjoinder doctrine); but see Coleman v. Conseco, 238 F.Supp.2d 804 (S.D.Miss.2002) (stating that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has adopted the principles of fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs set forth in Tapscott) (citing In Re: Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Coleman v. Conseco, Inc.
S.D. Miss. · 2002 · confidence medium
In Re: Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002) (holding that “misjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction”).
cited Cited "see" Sanchez v. Great American Insurance Company
W.D. Tex. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Benjamin Moore & Co. (“Benjamin Moore I ”), 309 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2002); In re Benjamin Moore & Co. (“Benjamin Moore II ”), 318 F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 2002); & Crockett v. R.J.
cited Cited "see" JYC Enterprise Inc. v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance
S.D. Tex. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2002).
discussed Cited "see" Sandra Kirkland v. Wyeth
8th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1360 ) (“[I]t might be concluded that misjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction.”); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 630-31 (5th Cir. 2002) (“[W]ithout detracting from the force of the Tapscott principle that fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs is no more permissible than fraudulent misjoinder of defendants to circumvent diversity jurisdiction, we do not reach its application in this case.”); California Dump Truck Owners Ass’n v. Cummins Engine…
discussed Cited "see" Prempro Products Liability Litigation v. Wyeth
8th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002) (citing Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1360 ) ("[I]t might be concluded that misjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction.”); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 630-31 (5th Cir.2002) (''[Wjithout detracting from the force of the Tapscott principle that fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs is no more permissible than fraudulent misjoinder of defendants to circumvent diversity jurisdiction, we do not reach its application in this case.”); California Dump Truck Owners Ass’n v. Cummins Engine Co.,…
cited Cited "see" Jones v. Nastech Pharmaceutical
S.D. Miss. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296 (5th Cir.2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Henican Terrebonne Property, LLC v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC
E.D. La. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2002) (suggesting that “misjoinder . . . should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction” and citing Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1360 ); Crockett v. R.J.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Martinez v. Pfizer Inc.
W.D. Tex. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g. , In re Benjamin Moore & Co. , 309 F.3d 296 , 298 (5th Cir. 2002) ; In re Benjamin Moore & Co. , 318 F.3d 626 , 631 (5th Cir. 2002) ; Crockett v. R.J.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hall v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC
E.D. Mo. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296 , 298 (5th Cir.2002) ("[M]isjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction.").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Federal Insurance Company v. TYCO INTERNATIONAL
S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
Thus, under Tapscott , “procedural misjoinder may represent a third type of fraudulent joinder.” 14B Wright, Miller & Cooper § 3723, at 658; see also In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296 , 298 (5th Cir.2002); In re Rezulin Prod.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Silica Products Liability Litigation
S.D. Tex. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The Fifth Circuit has not explicitly adopted this rule, but it has spoken in dicta of “the Tapscott principle that fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs is no more permissible than fraudulent misjoin-der of defendants to circumvent diversity jurisdiction.” In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 630-31 (5th Cir.2002) (holding that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s rejection of defendants’ fraudulent misjoin-der claim); see also In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002) (“[I]t might be concluded that mis-joinder of plaintiffs sh…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Greene v. Wyeth
D. Nev. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296 (5th Cir.2002). 10 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Grennell v. Western Southern Life Insurance
S.D.W. Va · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 309 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.2002); Cal. Dump Truck Assn. v. Cummins Engine Co., 24 Fed.Appx. 727, 729 (9th Cir.2001) (assuming without deciding that the fraudulent joinder doctrine applies to plaintiffs as well as defendants); Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re: Benjamin Moore & Company, Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Nl Industries, Inc. Valhi, Inc., Holder of 10% or More of Nl Publicly-Traded Stock Tremont Corp., Holder of 10% or More of Nl Publicly-Traded Stock Sherwin-Williams Company
02-60714.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 4, 2002.
309 F.3d 296
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 69%
Citer courts: N.D. Texas (1)

309 F.3d 296

In Re: BENJAMIN MOORE & COMPANY, wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.; Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.; NL Industries, Inc.; Valhi, Inc., holder of 10% or more of NL publicly-traded stock; Tremont Corp., holder of 10% or more of NL publicly-traded stock; Sherwin-Williams Company, Petitioners.

No. 02-60714.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 4, 2002.

Dudley Collier Graham, Jr., Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, Jackson, MS, for Benjamin Moore & Co.

F. Ewin Henson, III, James E. Upshaw, Upshaw, Williams, Biggers, Beckham & Riddick, Greenwood, MS, Mark Claibrone Carroll, Upshaw, Williams, Biggers, Beckham & Riddick, Ridgeland, MS, for all Petitioners.

William Hugh Gillon, IV, Upshaw, Williams, Biggers, Beckham & Riddick, Ridgeland, MS, Antony B. Klapper, Michael D. Jones, Eric B. Wolff, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for NL Industries, Inc.

John G. Corlew, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, MS, for Sherwin-Williams Co.

Timothy W. Porter, Patrick Cash Malouf, Porter & Malouf, Jackson, MS, John A. Foxworth, Jr., Michael J. Casano, Foxworth & Casano, Gulfport, MS, for all Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Robert Allred Pritchard, Christopher Eugene Fitzgerald, Robert Pritchard Law Firm, Pascagoula, MS, Robert F. Wilkins, Pritchard Law Firm, Jackson, MS, for Washington, Reed, Hicks and Johnson.

Mark W. Davis, Ronald Martin Feder, Davis & Feder, Gulfport, MS, for Randle, Helm and Harrell.

Roland M. Slover, Thomas W. Tardy, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, Jackson, MS, for Alexander Hardware Co., Inc., Concordia Contracting Co., Inc., Feltus Bros. Ltd., Hudson Salvage, Inc., Tyson Lumber Co. of Natchez, Stine, Inc. and True Value Hardware.

William N. Graham, Aultman, Tyner, Ruffin & Yarborough, Hattiesburg, MS, for Clairborne Hardware Inc.

Fred H. Krutz, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, Jackson, MS, for Concordia Contracting Co., Inc., Feltus Bros. Ltd., Hudson Salvage Inc., Tyson Lumber Co. of Natchez, Stine, Inc. and True Value Hardware.

Luke M. Dove, Dove & Chill, Jackson, MS, for Darsey, Hirschs Store and Lane Hardware, Inc.

Stephen W. Rimmer, Watkins, Ludlam, Winter & Stennis, Jackson, MS, for Frierson Bldg. Supply Co.

James Tucker Mitchell, John Evans Gough, Jr., Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Bush, Ridgeland, MS, for Salvage & Liquidation Inc.

Lawrie E. Demorest, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, GA, Richard F. Yarborough, Jr., Jennifer L. Walley, Aultman, Tyner, Ruffin & Yarborough, Columbia, MS, for Lowes Home Centers Inc.

William F. Riley, Riley & Callaway, Natchez, MS, for Macs Bldg. Supply.

Danny Keith Clearman, Decatur, MS, for Mid South Lumber Inc.

J. Price Coleman, Bradley Witherspoon Smith, Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, Jackson, MS, for Mississippi Hardware Co. and Seabrook Paint Co. of Mississippi.

William Lee Guice, III, Rushing & Guice, Biloxi, MS, for Phillips Bldg. Supply Inc.

Stephen L. Thomas, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Norman E. Bailey, Jr., Robert L. Gibbs, Brunini, Gratham, Grower & Hewes, Jackson, MS, Phillip Mark Crane, Lawrence B. Finn, Chad Michael Tuschman, Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney, Chicago, IL, for Sears Roebuck & Co.

Edley Hicks Jones, III, Law Office of Edley H. Jones, III, Ridgeland, MS, for Wal-Mart Associates Inc.

C. Everette Boutwell, Laurel, MS, for Walters Salvage Inc.

Robert Raul Stephenson, Reeve G. Jacobus, Jr., Williford, McAllister & Jacobus, Jackson, MS, for Porters Paint.

Lucien C. Gwin, Jr., Gwin, Lewis & Punches, Natchez, MS, for Pittsburg Coating.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before JOLLY, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

[*~296]1

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is Denied Without Prejudice.

[*298]2

Petitioners' motion is framed around the district court's failure to address whether diversity jurisdiction was fraudulently defeated because among the seventeen plaintiffs herein, who have nothing in common with each other, only four have asserted claims that relate in any way to the nondiverse defendants. It may thus be contended that the other thirteen did raise claims cognizable in diversity jurisdiction. See Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir.1996), abrogated on other grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir.2000). Further, it might be concluded that misjoinder of plaintiffs should not be allowed to defeat diversity jurisdiction. See Tapscott id. (holding misjoinder may be as fraudulent as the joinder of a resident against whom a plaintiff has no possibility of a cause of action). The district court no doubt inadvertently overlooked that this point was timely raised, but the point cannot be ignored, since it goes to the court's jurisdiction and to the defendants' rights to establish federal jurisdiction following removal. Because we are confident that the able district court did not intend to overlook a feature critical to jurisdictional analysis, there is no reason to grant mandamus relief at this time.

[*~297]3

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:

4

I concur only in the result of the order that denies the petition for mandamus.