Prempro Products Liability Litigation v. Wyeth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, even if the doctrine were valid, “the plaintiffs’ alleged misjoinder [was] not so egregious as to constitute fraudulent misjoinder”
• concluding that the joinder was not “so 20 egregious and grossly improper” as to constitute fraudulent misjoinder
• noting that, when federal diversity jurisdiction depends on a question of joinder, \the proper procedure\ may be for parties to argue the joinder issue in state court
• “Considering the uncertainty surrounding the propriety of the joinder of plaintiffs’ claims, the preferable course of action may have been for defendants to challenge the misjoinder in state court before it sought removal.”
• noting the test for permissive joinder under Rule 20 is “not a rigid test and is meant to be read as broadly as possible whenever doing so is likely to promote judicial economy”
• explaining fraudulent misjoinder and recognizing the Eighth Circuit has not adopted it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).