Patricia J. Mayes v. Stanley Rapoport Judith Rapoport David Key, D/B/A Key Coffee Roasters, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a mere “glimmer of hope” for relief is sufficient for a plaintiff to overcome a claim of fraudulent joinder
• stating that fraudulent join-der allows the court to retain jurisdiction by dismissing non-diverse defendants
• noting that courts carefully scrutinize attempts to add a non-diverse defendant after removal
• fraudulent joinder has no effect once the district court actually possesses jurisdiction, including after the case has been properly removed
• “[A] 'district court has the authority to reject a post-removal joinder that implicates 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), even if the join-der was without leave of court.”
• fraudulent joinder doctrine “does not directly apply after removal because the district court already possesses jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).