Valentine v. Borg-Warner Corporation (2009)

Our plain-English summary of Valentine v. Borg-Warner Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, September 1, 2009).

James M. Valentine, Sr., as special administrator of his wife Mary Valentine's estate, sued eight manufacturers of asbestos-containing automobile brakes, clutches and gaskets. He alleged her exposure to those products caused malignant mesothelioma and her death. The case was removed to federal court in Arkansas. Darragh Company was the only defendant that was not diverse from the plaintiff. Borg-Warner argued Darragh had been fraudulently joined just to defeat diversity, relying on Mr. Valentine's deposition testimony that he knew nothing about Darragh or whether his wife was exposed to its products. The court explained that fraudulent joinder requires a frivolous or illegitimate claim, and that there is no fraudulent joinder if state law might impose liability on the resident defendant under the facts alleged. It found Borg-Warner's argument was really about whether the plaintiff could prove the case, like a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court granted the motion to remand to the Circuit Court of White County, Arkansas.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
• Decided: September 1, 2009
• Docket: No. 4:09CV00684-WRW
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• State: Arkansas

Outcome. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, rejecting Borg-Warner's fraudulent joinder argument, and sent the case back to the Circuit Court of White County, Arkansas.

What the court held. Fraudulent joinder exists only when there is no colorable claim against the non-diverse defendant; an argument that the plaintiff cannot prove the claim, based on deposition testimony, does not show fraudulent joinder.

Issues decided: Venue, Removal and Transfer.

The people and their exposure

• Mary Valentine: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Borg-Warner Corporation (manufacturer)
• Darragh Company (manufacturer)

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

JAMES M. VALENTINE, SR., Special Administrator of the Estate of Mary Valentine, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v.

BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, etal., Defendants.

No. 4:09CV00684-WRW.

September 1, 2009.

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

ORDER

WILLIAM R. WILSON Jr., District Judge.

Pending is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 4). Defendant Borg-Warner Corporation has responded.[1] Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Mary Valentine's exposure to Defendants' asbestos-containing products caused her to develop malignant mesothelioma, which resulted in her death. Plaintiff sued eight manufacturers who allegedly "manufactured, sold and distributed asbestos-containing automobile brakes, clutches and gaskets." Defendant Darragh Company was the only non-diverse defendant.

II. DISCUSSION

Borg-Warner asserts that Defendant Darragh Company was fraudulently joined solely to defeat diversity. To support its position, Borg-Warner relies on Mr. James Valentine's deposition testimony that he did not know anything about Darragh Company or whether his wife was exposed to Darragh Company products.

Fraudulent joinder exists when a plaintiff files a "frivolous or otherwise illegitimate claim against a non-diverse defendant solely to prevent removal."[2] "However, if there is a `colorable' cause of action — that is, if the state law might impose liability on the resident defendant under the facts alleged — then there is no fraudulent joinder."[3] In this case, although Borg-Warner argues "fraudulent joinder," its motion is more akin to a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. Borg-Warner does not contend that there is no reasonable basis in fact and law to support Plaintiff's claim against Darragh Company. Rather, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot prove her case against Darragh because Mr. Valentine testified that he didn't know anything about Darragh Company — and even this argument over eggs the puddin'. While it's left to be seen whether Plaintiff will be able to succeed on the cause of action against Darragh Company, it cannot be said that Plaintiff has alleged no colorable cause of action against Darragh Company.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to the Circuit Court of White County, Arkansas.

[1] Doc. No. 7.

[2] Filla v. Norfolk Souther Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 809-10 (8th Cir. 2003).

[3] Id. at 810.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Arkansas asbestos laws
• Arkansas asbestos exposure sites