Archuleta v. TAOS LIVING CENTER, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that the question is not whether the plaint has stated a claim but whether the plaintiff, with amendment, could state a possibly viable claim
• reasoning that the question is not whether the plaint[iff] has stated a claim but whether the plaintiff, with amendment, could state a possibly viable claim
• finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of the defendant's removal where the defendant made good-faith arguments with supporting authority
• original pleading’s lack of specificity was not determinative of fraudulent joinder analysis because “the question before the Court is whether ‘any one’ of [plaintiff’s] claims is ‘possibly viable’”
• “The Court will thus determine whether there is a possibility that any of J. Archuleta’s claims against Reid are viable, either in state court, or in federal court under an amended complaint.”
• “In cases where fraudulent joinder is asserted, the Tenth Circuit instructs that the court should ‘pierce the pleadings, consider the entire record, and determine the basis of joinder by any means available.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).