T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r11,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RO N NE RA D, Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. AST RAZE NECA P H A R M A C E U T IC A L S , IN C .; TI M O TH Y SY D N ES, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ants . N o. 05- 6128 ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 4 - 1 6 7 4 - T) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , HOLL OW AY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D efe ndantA s tr aZeneca Phar m ace ut i cal s , I nc. , appea l s fr om t he di s tr i ct c o u r t ’ s o r d e rr e ma n d i n g th i s c a s e t o Ok l a h o ma s t a t e c o u r t . We c o n c l u d e t h a twe lac k a p p e llate ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e re m a n d o rd e r, an d w e d ism iss th e a p p e a l.- 2 - B ackgr ound On No v e mb e r1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , P l a i n t i ff Ro n Ne r a d fi l e d a c o mp l a i n ti n Ok l a h o ma st at e cou rtal l eging prod ucts l i abil i ty , fraud an d m i sr epresent at i on cl ai m s agai nst D efe ndantA s tr aZeneca and i t s drug s al es r epr es ent at i ve, D efe ndantT i m othy Sy dnes . T hes e cl ai m s ar os e fr om i nj ur i es M r . N er ad al l egedl yr ece i ved fr om u sing the d rug C restor. A stra Z e n e c a re m o v e d th e m a tter to fe d e ra l co u rt. M r. N e ra d p ro m p tly m o v ed fo r rem an d , asse rt ing w ith o u t dispu te th at bo th h e a n d M r. S y d n es w ere ci t i zens of O kl ahoma. A s tr aZeneca m ai nt ai ned thatM r . Sy dnes had bee n fr audul ent l yj oi ned, and i toppos ed the r emand on t he gr ound thatthe onl ypr oper part i es t o the ac t i on–i t s el f and M r . N er ad–w er e di ver s e. O n M ar ch 11, 2005, t he di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed M r . N er ad’ s m ot i on for r emand. A pl t . A pp. at49- 53. I n a rul i ng notcont es t ed i n thi s appea l , the di s tr i ct c o u rt h e ld th a t M r. S y d n e s w a s f ra u d u le n tly jo in e d to th e p ro d u c ts lia b ility c la im . H ow ever , i tal s o det erm i ned thatM r . Sy dnes w as pr oper l yj oi ned t o the fr aud and m i s r epr es ent at i on cl ai m s . A s tr aZeneca ar gued thatM r . N er ad fa i l ed t o pl ead thos e cl ai m s w i th s uffi ci entpart i cul ar i tyt o s at i s fyFed. R . C i v. P. 9( b) , butthe co u rtco n clud ed that “[ e]v en if th e c o u rtw ere to d eterm ine th at th e c lai m s are defi ci enti n thi s r egar d, the courtw oul d author i ze [ N er ad] t o fi l e an a m ended co m p lai n t t o inclu d e su ffici en t parti cu lari ty . ” A p lt . A p p . at 52 . F inally , the c o u rt r ej e c t e d As tr a Ze n e c a ’ s c o n t e n t i o n th a tM r . Ne r a d c o u l d n o tp r e v a i l o n h i s c l a i ms- 3 -

b e c a u se h e h a d n o e v id e n c e th a t h e o r h is p h y sic ian e v e r h a d d ire c t co n tac t w ith M r . Sy dnes . A pl t . A pp. at52- 53. B a se d o n th e se ru lin g s, th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t A stra Z e n e c a h a d fa iled to ca rryit s “h ea v y ” b u rde n o f d em o n str ati n g fra u d u lent joind er. T h u s, the c o u rt hel d thati tl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on becaus e M r . N er ad and M r . Sy dnes w er e notdi ver s e, and i tr emanded the ca s e t o s t at e court . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.

D i s cus s i on T h e th re sh o ld q u e stio n w e m u st a n sw e r is w h e th e r th is c o u rt is p e rm itt e d to r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r emand or der . U nder28 U . S. C . § 1447( d) , “[a ] n or der re m a n d in g a c a se to th e S tate c o u rt f ro m w h ich it w a s re m o v e d is n o t re v iew a b le o n a p p e a l o r o th e rw ise . . . . ” H o w e v e r, th is p ro h ib iti o n is n o t as b ro a d a s it se e m s: “ § 1 4 4 7 (d ) m u st b e re a d in p a ri m a ter ia w ith § 1 4 4 7 (c ), so th a t o n ly rem an d s b ase d o n g rou n d s sp ec ifi ed in § 1 4 4 7 (c) are im m u n e f rom rev iew u n d er § 1 4 4 7 (d ).” T h in g s R e m e m b e re d , In c . v . P e tr a rc a , 5 1 6 U .S . 1 2 4 , 1 2 7 (1 9 9 5 ). T h e re fo re , w h e n “ a d istric t co u rt’s r e m a n d is b a se d o n a tim e lyra ise d d e fe c t in r emoval pr ocedur e oron a l ack of s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on–the gr ounds of re m a n d re c o g n ize d b y§ 1 4 4 7 (c )– a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls la c k s ju risd ictio n to e n ter tain an appe al of the r emand or derunder§ 1447( d) . ” I d. at127- 28. T hi s r emai ns true for“al l r emand or der s i s s ued pur s uantt o § 1447( c) , w hethererr oneous or n o t . . . .” T h e rm tr o n P ro d s ., In c . v . H e rm a n s d o rfe r, 4 2 3 U .S . 3 3 6 , 3 4 3 (1 9 7 6 ).- 4 -

A c c o rd in g ly , this c o u rt c a n re v iew a re m a n d o rd e r o n lyif it h a d a b a sis o u tsi d e o f § 1 4 4 7 (c). “In o rde r t o ev alua te th e re v iew ab il ityo f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s r emand or der [] , w e musti ndepende nt l yr evi ew the r ecor d t o det erm i ne the ac tual gr ounds upon w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtbel i eved i tw as empow er ed t o r emand. ” D alrym p le v. G ran d R iver D am A u th., 1 4 5 F . 3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T h e d istri ct co u rth eld th at reg ard less o f w h ethe r th e p lead ing s w ere t echni cal l ydefi ci entunderFed. R . C i v. P. 9( b) , theycoul d eas i l ybe amended, a n d a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e a llo w e d a s a m a tter o f c o u rse . T h u s, th e re v iew a b ili ty of the r emand or derturns on w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on atthe out s et , orw hetheri tdet erm i ned thati ti ni t i al l yhad j ur i s di ct i on butw oul d l os e j ur i s di ct i on once the pl eadi ngs w er e amended. I f the form er , the rem an d o rde r i s n o t r ev iew ab le. S ee T h ing s R em em b ere d , 5 1 6 U . S . at 12 7 -28 . If the l att er , the r emand w as notpur s uantt o § 1447( c) , and r evi ew i s pos s i bl e. See, e.g., P o o re v . A m erican -A m icab le L ife In s. C o . , 2 1 8 F . 3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 9 1 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (“[E ]ve n ts oc cu rri n g af ter rem o v al . . . d o n o t ou st th e d istri ct co u rt ’s juri sd ict ion . ”); T ran s P en n W ax C o rp. v. M cC an d less, 5 0 F . 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 (3rd C ir . 1995) ( “[A ] r emand onl yfal l s under§ 1447( c) i f the r emoval i t s el f w as juri sd ict ion all yim p rop er, no t i f th e d efec t arose af ter rem o v al. ”). T he al l egat i ons of fr audul entj oi ndercompl i cat e ouranal y s i s . W hi l e a courtnor m al l yeval uat es the pr opr i etyof a r emoval bydet erm i ni ng w hetherthe al l egati on s on the face o f t he co m plai nt s at i sfythe jur i sdi ct i on al requi rem ents ,- 5 -

f ra u d u len t jo in d e r c laim s a re a ss e rtio n s th a t th e p lea d in g s a re d e c e p tiv e . T h u s, in cas es w her e fr audul entj oi nderi s cl ai m ed, w e have di r ect ed court s t o “pi er ce the pl eadi ngs , cons i dert he ent i r e r ecor d, and det erm i ne the bas i s of j oi nderbyany m ea n s av ail ab le. ” D o d d v . F aw ce ttP u b l’ n s, Inc . , 3 2 9 F . 2 d 8 2 , 8 5 (10 th C ir . 19 64 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). In so doing, the co urtm ustdecide w hetherthere i s a r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s t o b e l i e v e t h e p l a i n t i ff mi g h ts u c c e e d i n a tl e a s to n e c l a i m agai ns tthe non- di ver s e defendant . See B adon v. R J R N abi s co, I nc. , 224 F. 3d 382, 393 ( 5th C i r . 2000) . A “r eas onabl e bas i s ” means j us tthat : the cl ai m need n o t b e a su re -th in g , b u t itm u st h a v e a b a sis in th e a lleg e d fa c ts a n d th e a p p lica b le l a w. W e h av e p rev iou slyind icated that “a fra u d u lent joind er a n aly sis [is] a j ur i s di ct i onal i nqui r y . ” A l bertv. Sm i th’ s Food & D rug C tr s . , I nc. , 356 F. 3d 1242, 1247 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . A l though w e have notaddr es s ed the ques t i on i n the c o n tex t o f

w h e th e r a re m a n d o rd e r b a se d o n a fin d in g o f f ra u d u len t jo in d e r is r evi ew abl e, ours i s t erci r cui t s agr ee thats uch or der s ar e notr evi ew abl e. A s the Fi fth C i r cui texpl ai ned: T h e d istric t co u rt ru led o n a n a rg u m e n t p u t b e fo re it th a t d ire c tly im p li ca ted th e su bject m att er jurisdicti o n o f th at co u rt . T h e c o u rt expl i ci t l yhel d “thatthe j oi nderof the tr i be i s notfr audul ent , and that th e s t a t e l e s s s t a tu s o f

th e tr i b e th e r e fo r e d e s tr o ys c o m p l e t e d i v e r s i ty, and al ong w i th i t , thi s C our t ’ s di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on. ” The a c c o m p a n yi n g r e m a n d fa l l s d i r e c t l y w i th i n § 1 4 4 7 ( c ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y, pur s uantt o § 1447( d) , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the or derof r emand.- 6 -

V i ct orv. G r and C as i no- C ous hatt a, 359 F. 3d 782, 784- 85 ( 5th C i r . 2004) ( per cu ri am ); see also H ern an d ez v . S em ino le C o u n ty , 3 3 4 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); G a rb ie v . D a im le rC rysl e r C o rp ., 2 1 1 F .3 d 4 0 7 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T hi s r at i onal e i s cons i s t entw i th D al rym pl e, w her e w e cons i der ed w hether w e coul d r evi ew a r emand or derpr emi s ed on a l ack of fede r al ques t i on ju risd ictio n . T h e p lain tiffs h a d b ro u g h t a c las s-a c tio n law su it ag a in st a sta te a g e n c y , wh i c h r e mo v e d t h e c a s e t o fe d e r a l c o u r tb a s e d o n a l l e g e d fe d e r a l c l a i ms a n d d e fe n se s. In d e c lin in g re v iew , w e re a so n e d th a t: T he r emand or der s ati s s ue cl ear l ydo notr efl ectthe typi cal nonj ur i s di ct i onal det erm i nat i on i nvol vi ng a di s cr et i onaryr emand of s uppl ement aryorpendentcl ai m s , venue, abs t ent i on, comi ty , orthe w a iv e r o f

o p p o rt u n ity to c h a lle n g e a p ro c e d u ra lly irr e g u la r r e m o v a l. I ns t ead, t he or der s addr es s keyi s s ues di r ect l yr el at ed t o w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtcoul d have e xer ci s ed s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on over the ca s es –the pr es ence of a feder al ques t i on on t he fa ce of the p lain tiffs’ c o m p lain ts, a n d /o r th e p re se n c e o f a fe d e ra l q u e stio n in the form of a c ol or abl e fe der al i m m uni tydefe ns e. D al rym pl e, 145 F. 2d at1185. L i kew i s e, the or deri n thi s cas e addr es s ed keyi s s ues r el at ed t o w hethert he di s tr i ctcourthad s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on. T he pl eadi ngs on thei rfac e re flec ted a lac k o f

c o m p lete d iv e rsity . In th e h o p e o f c o n v in c in g th e c o u rt th a t it had j ur i s di ct i on, A s tr aZeneca i nvi t ed i tt o “pi er ce the pl eadi ngs , cons i derthe ent i r e r ecor d, and det erm i ne the bas i s of j oi nderbyanym eans avai l abl e. ” D odd, 329 F. 2d at85 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A l though the courtcons i der ed w h e th e r f

u tu re a m e n d m e n ts m ig h t allo w M r. N e ra d to sta te h is c laim s w ith- 7 -

su fficie n t p a rticu lar ityto sa tisf yF e d . R . C iv . P . 9 (b ), itd id so o n lyin o rd e r to det erm i ne w hethert her e w as a “pos s i bi l i tythatthe non- di ver s e partycoul d be l i abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff i n s t at e court . ” A pl t . A pp. at50. T hi s w as a j ur i s di ct i onal in q u iry . A s w e re a d th e o rd e r, th e c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t su c c e ss w a s re a so n a b ly pos s i bl e atthe t i m e of r em ovalbeca us e, al though the pl ai nt i ff mi ghtbe r equi r ed t o amend hi s compl ai nt , t hatamendm entw oul d be al l ow ed as a mat t erof cour s e. T h e re fo re , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt re m a n d e d b a se d o n its concl us i on thati tl acke d s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on atthe t i m e of r emoval . T he r emand w as thus or der ed pur s uantt o § 1447( c) , and w e ar e pr ecl uded fr om r e v i e wi n g i tb y§ 1 4 4 7 ( d ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e a p p e a l i s DI S M I S S E D.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge