Jeretta Kay Tedford v. Warner-Lambert Co. Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Co. Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Sankyo Parke-Davis Pfizer, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that removal was proper even where the defendant had “mov[ed] to transfer venue . . . [,] mov[ed] for entry of a confidentiality order, . . . mov[ed] to consolidate under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and . . . fil[ed] special exceptions” in state court
• discussing Barnes and stating: “Having found the first paragraph of § 1446(b) subject to equitable considerations, we find no reason to depart from this precedent with respect to the second paragraph of § 1446(b)”
• finding fraudulent joinder when plaintiff sued in-state doctor for adverse drug reaction, then signed and post-dated a notice of non-suit as to the physician, but did not serve it on co-defendant drug company until more than one year after filing suit
• “[T]he right to removal is not .lost by participating in state court proceedings short of seeking an adjudication on the merits.”
• “[T]he right to removal is not lost by participating in state court proceedings short of seeking an adjudication on the merits.”
• “Section 1446(b) is not inflexible, and the conduct of the parties may affect whether it is equitable to strictly apply the one-year limit.’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).