Gus Poulos and A.G.P. Marketing v. Naas Foods, Incorporated and Ranks, Hovis, McDougall Plc Group (Rhm Holdings U.S.A. Incorporated)

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that dismissal was appropriate where there was “no indication that [a defendant’s] presence in the suit was required to avoid any possible fraud”
• stating that it is well-settled that “[t]ax returns in the hands of a taxpayer are not privileged”
• applying fraudulent joinder to disregard parent company’s citizenship where plaintiff sued parent company for injury allegedly caused by subsidiary
• noting that a party arguing the “any reasonable possibility” of success test must “show that, after resolving all issues of fact and law in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant” (emphasis added)
• describing a party who won summary judgment in state 3Apparently rejecting this framework, the dissent would conduct a “Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis” and disregard the state court’s grant of summary judgment. Post at 20–22 (Haynes, J., dissenting). Under this Court’s precedent, a “Rule 12(b)(6
• fraudulent joinder in diversity context protects defendants’ legitimate right to remove in service of the purposes of diversity jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).