Heininger v. Wecare Distributors, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the new defendant “need not be indispensable . . . in order for a district court to permit joinder and remand the action to state court” (emphasis added)
• “[H]aving both defendants as parties to this action will promote the efficient use of judicial resources”
• “It is clear from the unambiguous language of § 1447(e) that a non-diverse party need not be indispensable as defined by Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 in order for a district court to permit joinder and remand the action to state court”
• “Section 1447(e) is essentially a codification of Hensgens ... where the court stated that a district court must remand to state court if it permits an amendment adding a non-diverse party, and that indispensability was not the threshold factor with respect to whether a joinder is permitted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).