The court ruled that remand was appropriate because the doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder is not recognized in the Third Circuit Court. The court noted that the elements of the doctrine were too unsettled to be adopted in this federal court.
As such, the Court ultimately ruled that a remand of this matter to the state court was proper.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.