green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
63.2 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2024–2025 ·
…a claim against a defendant may fail under rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.
at p. 1279
⚠ not in text
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2009–2025 · 4 courts ·
…if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court.
at p. 1279
✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2018–2020 · 2 courts ·
…general presumption against finding fraudulent joinder.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Perez Gamboa v. Walmart Inc.
if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brawley v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to state court.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Compass Building Services, LLC v. Andrea P. Koch, Hubert Koch, Balinda Gonser, and Todd Dehn
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dion Chin v. Goodrich Corporation et al.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Michael Ghiorso v. USA Waste of California, Inc., et al.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); Grancare, 889 4 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that 5 defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Teresa Aquino, Personal Representative of the Estate of Francisco Lopez Antonio; and Anselmo Caballero v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation; Andrey I. Kraskov, a Resident of Oregon; Mihail Inhnatiyevich Kraskov, a Resident of Oregon; and Foma I. Kraskov, a Resident of Oregon
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Misti Leon, as personal representative of the Estate of Juliana Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.
Reynolds Tobacco, 10 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shawn Salter v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis 11 added); Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549–50 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under 12 Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”). 13 “Consequently, if a defendant simply argues that plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts 14 to state a claim, the heavy burden of showing fraudulent joinder has not been met.” 15 Ontiveros v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. 12-cv-09437-MMM-FMO, 2013 WL 815975 , at 16 *5 (C.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elzie Bibbs v. Raising Cane’s USA, L.L.C., et al.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis 26 added); Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549–50 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under 27 Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”). 28 “Consequently, if a defendant simply argues that plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts 1 to state a claim, the heavy burden of showing fraudulent joinder has not been met.” 2 Ontiveros v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. 12-cv-09437-MMM-FMO, 2013 WL 815975 , at 3 *5 (C.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arredondo v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tina Scott v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carrasco v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 2 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also GranCare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim 3 against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily 4 been fraudulently joined.”). 5 The Court notes at the outset that T-Mobile has submitted no evidence in support 6 of its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Melissa Villasenor v. Quadient, Inc.
Under the second method, “if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was and remand the case to the state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1046 (quoting 7i//man v. Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not been fraudulently joined.”’).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Larsen v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kymberly Aleem Duncan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Thus, “ ‘if 23 there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against 24 any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand 25 the case to the state court’ .” Id. (quoting Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1046 (quoting Tillman v. R.J. 26 Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)) (emphasis added in 27 Grancore)). 1 B.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ortiz v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th 22 Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (emphasis added)). 23 Sixth, the Court considers whether denial of joinder will prejudice Ortiz.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maria Manjarrez v. Walmart Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”). __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 8:24-cv-01423-FWS-JDE Date: October 4, 2024 Title: Maria Manjarrez v. Walmart Inc. et al.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christina Abdelmalak v. Reopen Diagnostics, LLC
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mann v. Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corp.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis 25 added); Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549–50 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under 26 Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”). 27 “Consequently, if a defendant simply argues that plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts 28 to state a claim, the heavy burden of showing fraudulent joinder has not been met.” 1 Ontiveros v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. CV-12-09437-MMM-FMO, 2013 WL 815975 , at 2 *5 (C.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aleksandar Mackovski v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Yamamoto v. Homeowners Financial Group USA, LLC
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alen Berg v. FedEx Freight, Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blanca Sanchez v. Geodis Logistics LLC
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not necessarily been fraudulently joined.”). _____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 5:23-cv-02639-FWS-SHK Date: March 12, 2024 Title: Blanca Sanchez v. Geodis Logistics LLC et al.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Great American E & S Insurance Company v. Houston Casualty Company
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)). 3 (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel 4 of record and to REMAND this case to King County Superior Court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Usategui v. Delta Air Lines, Inc
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (per curiam); see also Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1541-42 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that “after drawing all reasonable inferences from the record in the plaintiff's favor and then resolving all contested issues of fact in favor of the plaintiff, there need only be a reasonable basis for predicting that the state law might impose liability on the facts involved.); Taylor Newman Cabinetry, Inc. v. Classic Soft Trim, Inc., 436 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dickson v. Walmart, Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 12 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beathia v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (emphasis 26 added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez v. Walmart Stores East, LP
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Durell Mike-Price v. Toshiba Lifestyle Products and Services Corporation
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curium)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Contreras v. Walmart Stores East, LP
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Yahne v. A1A Inc
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)) (emphasis added). 4 B.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez v. Estes Express Lines
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)) 25 (“[I]f there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action 26 against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and 27 remand the case to the state court.”) (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mirna Flamenco v. Mercedes Benz USA LLC
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Berns v. EnTrans International, LLC
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hoffman v. Cincinnati Insurance Company
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)). 4 Moreover, where the possibility remains unclear, the defendant has not met his burden to 5 prove fraudulent joinder and remand is required.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Erriton Hall v. Suzuki Motor Corporation
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tuens v. U.S. Bank National Association
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per 13 curiam)) (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bouchard v. National Casualty Company
Reynolds Tobacco, 19 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Metrea Scates v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 4 1 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. FCA US LLC
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Elizabeth Diaz v. Santa Monica Beach Hotel Corporation
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heidi Kathleen Myers v. FCA US LLC
Reynolds 10 Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)) (emphasis added). 11 “The standard is not whether plaintiffs will actually or even probably prevail on the 12 merits, but whether there is a possibility that they may do so.” Diaz v. Allstate Ins. 13 Grp., 185 F.R.D. 581, 586 (C.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Angelica Lopez Arambula v. FAB4 LLC
Reynolds 23 Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)) (emphasis 24 added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Laposa v. Walmart Stores East LP
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diiullo v. FCA US, LLC
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th 7 Cir. 2003) (per curiam)). 8 i. The Economic Loss Rule Does Not Bar Recovery Against Defendant 9 Tuttle-Click 10 Defendant FCA argues that the economic loss rule bars recovery against Defendant 11 Tuttle-Click for negligent repair.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marinelli v. Carter
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowles, Jr. v. Constellation Brands, Inc.
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003); Batoff v. State 26 Farm Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ismael Coronel v. Ford Motor Company
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)). 6 The California Supreme Court has since indicated that repair tolling does not apply to an “overarching limitations period later enacted specifically for suits alleging defects in the construction of improvements to real property—a limitations period measured, regardless of discovery, from the date the work of construction was completed.” Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal. 4th 363 , does not indefinitely extend the statute of limitations.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Armstrong v. General Motors LLC
Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)) (emphasis added).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brenda D. TILLMAN, as Executrix Under the Last Will and Testament of Kalen Oliver, Tillman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
00-10963.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 11, 2003.
Ross Diamond, III, Diamond, Hasser & Frost, Mobile, AL, for Tillman., William H. Brooks, Samuel H. Franklin, Lightfoot, Franklin, White & Lucas, Birmingham, AL, Thomas D. Schroeder, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem, NC, Joseph P. Babington, John Townsend Dukes, Frederick G. Helmsing, Helmsing, Lyons, Sims & Leach, P.C., Mobile, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Roney, Hill.
Cited by 59 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Alabama (1)
PER CURIAM:
On June 13, 2001, we issued an opinion in this case in which, inter alia, we asked the Alabama Supreme Court to answer a certified question regarding the interpretation of Alabama law concerning the liability of retailers who sell cigarettes. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 253 F.3d 1302, 1307-08 (11th Cir.2001). Federal jurisdiction of this case turns on the answer to our certified question because, as we stated, “If the complaint states a cause of action against retailers, there is no federal jurisdiction based on diversity.” Id. at 1307. The question is as follows:
WHETHER THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER ANY THEORY AGAINST ANY RETAIL DEFENDANTS INCLUDING THOSE THAT EMPLOY PHARMACISTS WHO SELL CIGARETTES FOR CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER THE ALABAMA EXTENDED MANUFACTURER’S LIABILITY DOCTRINE, OR PREMISED ON NEGLIGENCE, WANTONNESS, OR CIVIL CONSPIRACY UNDER ALABAMA LAW.
In its response, the Alabama Supreme Court answered our certified question in the affirmative as to the claims against retail defendants premised on negligence and wantonness, rejecting the retail defendants’ argument that Tillman’s negligence and wantonness claims merge into her Alabama Extended Manufacture’s Liability Doctrine statutory claims. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., — So.2d-,-, 2003 WL 21489707, No.[*1279] 1001644, slip op. at 14-15 (Ala. June 30, 2003). With potential state law claims against the three Alabama retail defendants, the district court erroneously asserted federal jurisdiction on the ground that they had been fraudulently joined.
As we explained in our June 13, 2001 opinion, if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court. Tillman, 253 F.3d at 1305.
We deny Reynolds’ motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spain v. Brown, & Williamson Tobacco Corp., -So.2d-, 2003 WL 21489727, No. 1000143 (Ala. June 30, 2003), which relates to the merits of the claims asserted against the manufacturers, over which the federal court has no jurisdiction because of the absence of the requisite complete diversity.
We vacate and remand to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the state court.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND TO STATE COURT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.