Kelso v. 3M Company

Background

Larry Kelso filed this lawsuit in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, against 3M Company and several other defendants. 3M removed the case to the Southern District of Texas, asserting diversity jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority over certain disputes between citizens of different states—and alleging that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The Southern District of Texas stayed the case, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred it to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in the Bair Hugger products-liability multidistrict litigation.

Kelso moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. 3M opposed the motion. 3M argued that the other defendants, whom it called the “Provider Defendants,” had been improperly joined to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. It also argued alternatively that the claims against those defendants should be severed under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with those claims sent to state court while Kelso’s claims against 3M remained in federal court.

Court’s analysis

Because 3M removed the case, it had the burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court applied Eighth Circuit law to the federal issues because the case had been transferred to Minnesota as part of the multidistrict litigation.

The court rejected 3M’s severance argument. It had rejected similar arguments in other cases transferred to the same multidistrict proceeding, and 3M did not show why a different result was warranted here.

The court also rejected 3M’s fraudulent-joinder argument. Fraudulent joinder is a jurisdictional doctrine that can permit a federal court to disregard a nondiverse defendant when there is no reasonable factual or legal basis for a claim against that defendant. 3M argued that Kelso had not alleged a viable medical-negligence claim, had not alleged that the providers caused his infection, and had not acted diligently in serving them. The court concluded that 3M had not shown that Kelso lacked a viable cause of action against the nondiverse defendants. The court assumed without deciding that a plaintiff’s lack of a real intention to pursue a claim could support a fraudulent-joinder finding, but concluded that 3M had not shown that Kelso lacked such an intention.

Disposition

The court granted Kelso’s Motion for Remand, remanded Case No. 23-cv-3073 to the District Court of Harris County, Texas, and directed the clerk to mail a certified copy of the order to the Harris County District Clerk. The court denied Kelso’s request for attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The order addressed removal and remand rather than the underlying claims’ merits.