Sullivan v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it would be “absurd” and “could not have been intended by Congress” to allow in-state defendants to remove based on “the timing of service”
• stating that the defendant’s “contention that removability should depend on the timing of service of process is absurd on its face”
• conceding, however, that an exhaustive review of the legislative history concerning Section 1441(b
• looking past the plain meaning of § 1441(b) and remanding a case in which the defendant removed before service could be effected in order to avoid an “absurd and bizarre result” and “give effect to the purpose of the forum defendant rule”
• “Congress appears to have added the language only to prevent the then-concrete and pervasive problem of improper joinder.”
• “Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages may not require the New Jersey state court to find fraud-on-the-FDA. ... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).