### FI LED U .S . COURT OF APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Octob er 2 5, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1348 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock et No. 0 4- 00 43 5 C V-S-NE CARL LEGG, DOROTHY LE GG, Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe lle es , ve rs us W Y E T H , f

. k. a. A m er ic anH om e Pr oduc ts C or por at ion , W YETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., f.k.a . Wy et h- Ay ers t Lab s, In c., D ef en da nts -Appe llants
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 25, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. COX , C ircuit Judg e:2

Pl ai nti ff s, D or oth y

a nd C ar l L eg g ( the “ L eg gs” ), f ile d ase ve n- co unt

c om pla int in an Al ab am a sta te co urt aga ins t seve ra l def en da nts , inc lud ing som e W y eth e nti tie s, In de vus Ph ar

m ac eu tic al s, I nc . , a nd thr ee Wy eth sa le s r ep re se nta tiv es . Wy eth
rem oved thi s case to fe deral court, contendin g that the P laintiffs fraudulently j oined three o f Wy e t h’ s sa l e s r e pr e se nt a t i ve s a s de f e nd a nt s i n a n e f

f or tt o de f e a tf e de r al div er sity j ur isd ic tio n. O n th e Pl ai nti ff s’ m oti on, the c ourt r em an de d th e cas e, an d
or d e r e d t ha t Wy et h p ay

th e Pl ai nt iff

s’ att or ne y s’ fees an d c os ts un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c ) as Wy eth’ s re m ova l ha d be en“ im pr ope r. ” (R
. 2- 24 a t 2. ) Wy eth a ppe al s th e district court’ s order aw arding attorney s’ fees and costs to the Plaintiffs. W e re verse.

I. BA CKG ROU

ND & PR OCE DU RAL HI ST ORY Carl a nd D or oth y

L eg g, c iti ze ns o f A la

ba m a, br ough t thi s ac tio n in the Ci rc uit Court of Madison Coun ty , Alabam a agains t Wy eth, a citizen of D elaw are and New Je rs ey , I nde vus Ph ar

m ac eu tic al s, I nc . , ac iti ze n of D el aw ar e an d M as sa ch use tts , a nd thr ee Wy eth sa le s r ep re se nta tiv es : Sta cy S tub ble fi el d, Mi ch ae l S ull ivan, a nd B et sy W eaver. Sullivan is alleged to be a citizen of G eorgia; Stubblefield and W eaver are al le ge d to be c iti ze ns o f A la ba m a. Car l Le gg con te nds he too k Wy eth’ s a nti -o be sity d r u g R e du x a n d , a s ar e s u l t , d e v e l o p e dv a l v u l a r h e a rtd i s e a s e . D o r o t h y L e g g c l a i ms lo ss of c on so rti um .3

Wy eth rem oved the m atter to the U nited States District C ourt for the N orthern D istri ct of A la ba m a. Wy eth a lle ge d th at f ed eral j ur isd ic tio n w as pr ope r unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1 3 3 2 (diversity

j urisdictio n), and that th e L eggs fraudulentlyj oined th ree sales repre sentatives to d estroy diversity
. Wy eth attache d af fi davits of the sales represe n t at i ves in sup port of its contenti on that th e sales re presentatives wer e fraudulently

j oined. Wy eth then m oved t o t rans fer the case to the U nited States District Court f

or the E astern D istrict of Pennsy lvania for consolid ation with sim ilar cases pending before the Mul t i -D istrict Litigation Panel. Bef ore re viewing that
m otion , the district court granted the L eggs’ s m otion to rem an d , c onclud ing th at div er sity did not e xis t. T he c ourt f

ound tha t t he sa le s r ep re se nta tiv es w er e not fr au dul en tly

j oin ed be ca use the re w as a “ poss ibi lity ” tha t the L eg gs c oul d pr ev ai l i n the ir cl ai m s agai nst

the m . T he c ourt r ea ch ed thi s c onc lus ionon the f ac e of the
co m plain t, co nc lud ing tha t i t c oul d no t c onsi de r the a ff ida vit s pr ovi de d by

Wy eth. T he c ourt a lso c onc lud ed tha t the L eg gs sta te d a possib le ca use of ac tio n for

inn oc en t or negligent m isrepresentation against Betsy W eaver, even if h er a ffidavit wa s taken
as tr ue . I n ase pa ra te orde r, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e L eg gs a tto rn ey s’ f ee s a nd
co sts in the a m ount

of $1,9 82. 49. Wy eth a

ppe al s th e gr an t of

a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s a nd
co sts
.4 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e m ay reviewthe m erits of a r em and order in considering whether the district
co ur t abu se d it s di sc ret io n by award in g att or ne y s’ fees an d cos ts un de r 28 U.S.C. § 14 47 (c). Fow le r v. S

af eco Ins . Co. o

f Am. , 915 F. 2 d 6 1 6 , 6 1 7 (1 1 th Cir. 1990 ). While 28 U.S .C. § 1447 (d) bars our r eview of a re m and such as this one based on lack
o f s ub je ct m at t erju ri s d i ct i o n , t h e s t at u t e d o es n o t“ ex cl u d e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s
as s es sm ent of costs from appellate re view. ” Id

. at 617. A s the Fifth Circuit has explained, “ [w ] hile we m ay not review the dec ision to r em and itself, we m ust, as part of our e xa m ina tio n of

the award of

f ee s, c onsi de r the obj ec tiv e va lid ity of the
rem ov in g p art y ’s effo rts , at t he ti m e th at pa rty att em pt edto r e mo v e th e cas e.” H ornb uc kl e v. Sta te F

arm L loy ds , 385 F. 3d 538, 541 (5 th Ci r. 2004 ). W e re vie w the di st ric t co ur t’s awar d o f at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts foran ab us e of di sc ret io n. Fowler , 91 5 F .2d at 6 17 . An erro r of law i s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. W ex le r v . L ep ore , 385 F. 3d 1 336, 133 8 ( 11t h C ir
. 200 4)
. The ref or e, a n a w ar d of

a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s ba se d on a le ga ll y erro ne ou s re m an d o rd er co ns ti tu te s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES Wy et h contends on appeal that the dist rict court er red in concludin g that Wy eth’ s rem oval was im

proper, and therefore that no fee s or costs sho uld have been
aw arded the L eggs. Wy eth argues that the district court erre d in refusing to con siderThese la wsuits were consolidated by the J udicial Panel on Multidis t ri ct L itigation in the 1 United States District Court of the Ea stern District of Pennsylvania. A Na tionwide Class Action Settlement Ag ree ment was then e x ecute d b y W y et h an d t he diet drugplaintiffs. See I n re Diet Drugs , Nos. 1203, 99-20593, 2000 WL 1222042, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Aug
. 28, 2000). The Settlement Ag re e me nt p e rm its Cla ss M e mbe rs wh o me e t c e rt a in e lig ibi lity c ri te ri a to o pt out and a sse rt

a c la im a g a ins t Wy e th i n th e tor t sy st em. Th e L e g g s o pte d o ut o f t he Se ttl e me nt A g re e me nt. Wy e th estimates that appr ox imately 50,000 plaintiffs have opted out and filed suit. Appellant B r. at 5. Fed er al diversity

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 require s “complete diversity ” - the 2 citizenship of every

plaintiff must be diverse from the c itiz enship of eve ry defe ndant. See, e .g., Pa lm e r v . H

os p. Au th. of R an do lph Cou nty , 22 F.3d 1559, 1564 ( 11th Cir. 1994). 5 unr e bu t t e d e vi de nc e s ub m i t t e d by i ti n su pp or to f r e m ov a l
. Wy e t h a l so a r gu e s t hat the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in co nc lud ing tha t t he L eg gs s ta te d po ssi ble c la im s a ga ins t Be tsy W ea ve r ba se d oninn oc en t or ne gli ge nt m isr ep re se nta tio n, ev en if he r af fi da vit
wa s taken as t rue. T he Le ggs defend the decisio n of the district court, and assert that the de ci sio n to a w ar d f

ee s a nd co sts w as not an ab use of dis cr et ion , e ve n if

w e w oul d ha ve de ci de d t he m at te r di ffer en tl y . IV. DISCUSSI ON This law suit bythe Le ggs is but on e of thous ands of cases brought b y plaintiffs across the country

who claim

they suffer from

valvular heart disease beca use they too k on e of

Wy eth’ s di et

dr ugs. A c om

m on s tr at egy em

plo y ed by the pla int if

fs in 1 these cases is to nam e local parties, often Wy eth’ s local sales rep re s en t atives, as de fend an ts, thu s de fe at ing Wy eth’ s r igh t t o r em ove ac as e to f ed er al c ourt. T he

2 Mul tid istri ct

L iti ga tio n C ourt, whi ch has ov er se en ala rg e pa rt

of thi s li tig at ion , co nc lud ed

tha t this j oin de r can “ onl y be ch ar ac te ri ze d as a sham , at the unf ai r ex pe nseFor examples f rom this c ircuit, see Cla

yv . W y e th , No. 5:04-cv- 192-OC-10GRJ at 14 (M.D. 3 Fla. Aug . 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 ) (mag istrate judg e’s r eport a nd rec ommendation noting that the pla intiff “has offe red nothing - whether sworn or unsworn” to r ebut the sworn statements mad e b y t h e s al es repr esentative and conc luding that Wy eth’s remova l of the ca se wa s proper ); So bo wsk i v . W y e th , No. 5:04-cv-96- Oc- 10GRJ at 3-4 (M.D . Fla. June 24, 2004) (c onsidering defe ndants’ af fidavits and finding that the evidenc e “doe s not give rise to a reasonable infere nce that the sales re prese ntatives knew or should have known of the drug’s harmful effec ts” and that the r epre sentatives we re “ joined on ly to p re ve nt r e mov a l” ); Da v is v . W y e th , No. 4: 03-cv- 128 (CDL ) at 13 (M.D. Ga. J une 10, 2004) (conc luding that plaintiff’ s evidenc e did not ref ute the defenda

nts’ “sworn a ffidavit stateme nts that they had no knowledg e that the diet dr ug s were linked to valvular he art disea se,” an d fi nding that the joi nd e r of the no n- div e rs e de fe nd ants wa s f ra ud ule nt) ; Fo wle r v . W

y e th , N o. 3:0 4- c v- 83 /MC R at 8-9 (N .D. Fla . May

14, 2004) (conc luding that ba sed on def endants’ de clar ations that they did not sell the diet drug , plaintiffs could not maintain any of their a sserted c auses of action; also noting that on c e “ Wy e th p re se nte d th e de c laratio ns to the Court , Plai nti ff s cou ld not

c on tin ue to r e ly up on the ir un su pp or te d a lle g a tio ns in t

he c omplai nt ” ); Le wis v . W y e th , No. 3:04-cv- 81/MCRat 8 (N.D . Fla. Ap r. 29 , 200 4) (s imi larl y c on c lud ingthat th e sa le s r e pr e se ntativ e ’s “ un c on tr ov e rt e d d e c laratio n is su ff ic ie nt t o d e mon str a te that he w a s f ra ud ule ntl y joi ne d in thi s la ws uit ” ); Pe tty

v . W y e th , No. 3:04- cv-82/MCR at 8-9 (N.D. Fla. A pr. 28, 2004) ( finding that the “unc ontroverte d decla rations of [the sa le s r e pr e se ntativ e s] are su ff ic ie nt t o d e mon str a te that th e y we re fr a ud ule ntl y joi ne d in

thi s lawsuit”). 6 not onl y of [ Wy eth] but

of m any ind ivi dua ls and s m al l e nte rp ri se s th at a re be ing unf ai rl y dr ag ge d in to c ourt si m

ply to pr ev en t t he a dj udi ca tio n of la w sui ts a ga ins t [Wy eth] , the r eal tar get, in a f ederal f orum .” Ander

s o n v . Am. Home Pro ds . Cor p., 220 F. Supp. 2d 4 14, 425 (E. D. Pa. 2002 ). Indeed, there are dozens of district court decisions finding th at Wy eth sales repre sentatives were fra udul ent ly j oined as defendants to defeat federal diversity j urisdictio n. Wy eth contends that this is s uch

3
a case . The L eggs nam ed three local sale s representatives as defe ndants in this case. Mi ch ae l S ull ivan, the f

ir st s al es r ep re se nta tiv e na m ed a s ade fe nda nt i n th is s uit , subm itt ed a n a ff ida vit to the dis tr ic t cour

t sta tin g that he is “ a ci tiz ena nd r es ide nt o f7

the S ta te of

G eo rg ia
. ” (R
. 1- 1 a t Ex
. B. ) If tha t is true , Su lli va n’ s pr es en ce w oul d no t de fe at div er sity j ur isd ic tio n. T he se co nd s al es r ep re se nta tiv e, S ta cy Stu bbl ef ie ld, claim s he never so l d Re d u x . In his affidavit, S tubb lefield swore that he “ never advert i se d, a ss e m

bl e d, c r e a t e d, d e si gn e d, d e t a i l e d, d i str i bu t e d, l abe l e d, m a de , m anuf ac tur ed , m ar

ke te d, pa ckag ed , pr om ote d, sol d, ste ri liz ed , sup pli ed , te ste d, or
warra nted Po ndi m in or Re dux, or tr ai ne d [] an y one to do so. ” (R
. 1- 1 at Ex. B.) Fi n al ly , the third sales re presentative, B etsy W eaver, adm itted that she “ prom oted Re dux to lic en se d hea lth care pr ovi de rs a nd answ er ed the ir que sti ons ab out

the dr ug based on inform ation provi ded to m e by Wy eth.” (

Id

. ) How ever, W eaver asserts that she ha d no kno w le dge of

Re dux’ s a lle g e d

a sso ci at ionw ithva lvu la r he ar t di se as e unt il the a lle ga tio n w as f

ir st p ubl ic iz ed : My kn owledg e of

the dr ugs I de ta ile d w as de ri ve d e xc lus ive ly fr om e duc at ionpr ovi de d to m e by Wy eth. Wy eth pr ovi de d m e w iththe FD A -a ppr ove d pa ck ag e ins er

ts and o the r inf

orm at ionr eg ar din g th e dr ugs I de ta ile d. I ha d no inv olv em en t i n th e de ve lop m en t or preparation of package inserts for any drugs, and had no control o v er co nte nt o r oth er

w ri tte n w ar

nin gs. I w as not expected, as a field sales re pres en tative, to conduct ind ep en de nt r es earc h r eg ar din g the dr ugs I de ta ile d, a nd d id n ot d o so . I w as not expected to, and did no t, r eview independ ent scientific studies publ ish ed in j our na ls u nle ss the y

w er e supp lie d to m e by

Wy eth. I w as not a w ar e of a ny a lle ge d assoc ia tio n be tw ee n P ondi m in an d/o r Re dux an d valv ular he ar t di se as e unt il the ti m e suc h a n a lle ga tio n wa s first publ icized. I w as not awar e before that tim e of any publi shed stu dy , r ep ort or othe r lit er at ur e w hic h c la im ed

tha t a n a sso ci at ione xis ts be twee n P on di m in an d/ orRed ux an d v al vu la r he art di se as e.8

( Id

. ) Wy eth a tta ch ed

the se thr ee af

fi da vit s as ex hib its to its not ic e to r em ove thi s c as e to fe de ra l cour

t. In the not ic e of re m ova l, Wy eth a lle ge d th at the a ct ionc oul d ha ve
or igi na lly be enf ile d inf ed er al c ourt be ca

use c om ple te div er sity of

c iti ze nshi p e xis ts b et we en the properly

j oined parties, and that the three sales r epresentatives we re frau du le nt ly j oi ne d. Inr es pons e to the sa le s r ep re se nta tiv es ’ af fi da vit s, the P la int if

fs did not dis put e Su lli va n’ s sw or

n st at em en t tha t he w as a ci tiz en of G eo rg ia , nor did the y re spon d to Stace y Stubblefield’ s sworn statem ent that he never prom oted or sold Redux. In an effort to rebut W eav er ’s sworn statem ent that she did n ot kno w of Redux’ s alleged connection with valvu lar hear t disease, the P laintiffs point ed out to the district court tha t a ll of

Wy eth’ s sa le s r ep re se nta tiv es ha d to pa rti ci pa te inaS al es T ra ini ng Pr ogra m . The P la int if

fs sub m itt ed

to the c ourt a

c opy of Wy eth’ s S al es T ra ini ng Pr ogr am . ( R. 2- 14 Ex. B.) But t he doc um en t do es not c ont ai n a ny

w ar nin g to the
sa l e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t h a t R e du x m a y c au s e v a l v u l a r h e a rt d i s e a s e . N o r doe s th e
c o rr e s p o n d i n g p a c k a g e i n s e rt , p r o v i d e da s ap a rto f t h e S a l e s T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m, provide any

warning to th e sales re presentatives that Redux m ay cause valvular heart disease. Thus, th e m at er ial the Plaintiffs subm itted to th e court in fac t reinforce s W eaver’ s sworn st atem ent that she wa s never to ld by the com pany that Redux m ayNot only did the P laintiffs fail t o dispute Weaver ’s sworn state ment that she did not know 4 that Redux may cause valvular heart disease, the Plaintiffs also failed to show that Weaver had eve r promoted or sold the drug to Carl L eg g ’s prescribing phy sician. L eg g ’s prescribing phy sician wa s not identified in the complaint. (R.1-1 Ex
. A.) The Plaintiffs did submi t affidavits from four other phy sicians, but none of the se doctors we re L egg’ s presc ribing phy sician, nor did they have a ny connec tion to thi s case . (R.2-14 Ex. A.) 9 ca use va lvu la r he ar

t di se as e an d did not le ar

n of the ri sk unt il it fi rs t be ca m e publ ic ly know n. 4 T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ef

use d to c onsi de r the a ff

ida vit s by the sa le s r ep re se nta tiv es . In ste ad , the c ourt c onc lud ed tha t t he P la int if

fs sta te d apos sib le cau se of a ct ionf or fr au d ag ai nst bot h St

ubbl ef ie ld (w ho sa id h e ne ve r sol d th e dr ug) a nd W ea ve r (w ho sol d it , she sa id, not

kn owi ng i t c oul d be da nge ro us)
. T he c ourt r ea sone d th at the que sti ons of

wh e th e r th e i n d ivi dua l de fe nda nts “ ac tua lly sol d or pr om ote d R ed

ux, a nd
w hether the ind ivi dua l de fe nda nts a ct ua lly c onve y ed

inc or re ct or m isl ea din g inf orm at ionto [P ] la int if

f Carl L eg g’ s he al thc ar e pr ovi de rs , bot h go to the m er its of plaintiffs’ claim s.” (R. 2-19 at 10.) I n reac hing its conclusio n that the Plaintiffs stated a possib le cause of a ction against th e sales re p re s en tatives, the district court relied solely on various allegatio ns in th e Plaintiffs’ com plaint. (R .2-19 at 9-11.) W e conclud e th at Wy eth’ s efforts to re m ove this case to federal c ourt wer e obj ec tiv el y

va lid a nd r ea sona

ble
. “ Co sts a re a sse sse d in a c as e of ‘ im pr ovi de nt
rem oval.’ ” Fowler , 915 F .2d . a t 61 8. Th is i s no t a c as e of im pr ovi de nt r em ova l. Wy eth pr es en te d th e co urt w itha ff ida vit s f ro m it s sal es re pr es en ta tiv es to es ta bli sh10

that they we re f raudulentlyj oined. Th e district court erre d in refusing to con sider th es e aff id av it s. W e ha ve ex pla ine d be fo re tha t “ [t ] he de te rm ina tio n of w he th er a resid en t de fe nda nt h as be enf

ra udul en tly j oin ed m ust be ba se d upon t he pla int if f’ s pl ea din gs at the ti m e of

r em ova l, sup ple m en te d by a ny a ff ida vit s a nd de posi tio n tr an sc ri pts subm itted by

the parties.” Pac he co de Pere z v. AT& T Co ., 139 F. 3d 1 368, 138 0 ( 11t h Ci r. 199 8) (e m

pha sis ad de d)
. T he pr oc ee din g a ppr opr ia te “ fo r re sol vin g ac la im of fr au dul en t j oin de r is s im ilar to tha t us ed f or ru lin g on a m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t under Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(b).” Cr ow e v. Co le m an , 113 F. 3d 15 36, 1538 (11t h Cir. 1997 ) (quot ing B , I

nc . v . M ill er B re wi ng C

o. , 663 F. 2d 545, 549 n. 9 (5th Ci r. U nit A 1981 ))
. I n su ch apr oc ee din g, the dis tr ic t co urt m ust “ re sol ve al l que sti ons of fa ct
.

. . in f avor of the plaintiff.” Ca bal ce ta v
. Sta ndard F rui t C o. , 883 F. 2d 1 553, 156 1 (11th Cir. 1989). But there m ust be som e questio n of fact before the district court can
re sol ve tha t f

ac t in the pla int if

f’ s favor . In thi s ca se , fo r ex am ple , the P la int if

fs did not dis put e St

ubbl ef ie ld’ s sw or

n st at em en t t ha t he ne ve r pr om ote d or sol d th e dr

ug Re dux. W ithno r es pons e fro m th e Pl ai nti ff s, the re w as no que sti on o f fa ct f or the
co ur t to r es olv e. T he sa m e goe s f or W ea ve r, w ho a sse rt ed

tha t sh e did

not kno w Re dux m ay

c au se va lvu la r he ar

t di se as e. The Pl ai ntiff s of fe re d no e vid en ce to dis put e thi s sw or

n sta te m en t. Whe n th e D ef en da nts ’ a ff

ida vit s a re und isp ute d by

the11

Pl ai nti ff s, the c ourt c an not

the n r es olv e the fa ct s in the P la int if fs ’ f av or ba se d so le ly on the un supp orted allegations in the Plaintiffs’ com plaint. As the Fifth Circuit has
ex pla ine d: Whil e suc h apr oc ed

ur e re qui re s th at

a ll dis put ed que sti ons of

f ac t be re sol ve d in favor of the nonr em ovi ng p ar ty , a s w ithasum

m ar y j udgm en t m otion , in deter

m ining div er s i t y the m ere assertion of m etaphy sical doub t as to the m aterial f acts [is] insufficient to c reate an issue if there is no basi s for tho se fa ct s. So al so as w ith a sum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on: [W] e r e s o l v e f

a c tu a l c o n t r o v e r s i e s i n f

a v o r o f t h e n o n mo v i n g p a rt y, but onl y w he n the re is an ac tua l co ntr ove rs y , tha t is, w he n both parties ha ve sub m itt ed evidence of c on tra di ct or y fact s. W e do n ot, how ev er

, in the abs en ce of anypro of, ass ume th at the no nm ov ing par tyc ould or wo uld pro ve the ne cessa ryfac ts. B adon v. R

JR Na bis co, Inc ., 224 F. 3d 3 82, 393 -9 4 ( 5th Ci r. 200 0) ( em pha sis in
or ig in al ) (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d)
. In ign or ing the D ef

en da nts ’ af

fi da vit s in this ca se , the dis tr ic t cour t r el ie d on
our hol din g in Cr ow e v. Co le m an , 1 13 F.3 d 15 36 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Crowe , how ever, did no t preclude rely ing on aff idavits in resolving a quest i o n o f fr au dulent joinder. Inf ac t, in Crowe , as in our ot he r cases ad dr es sin g f ra udul en t j oin de r, w e fo und it
en tir el y pr ope r fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o c onsi de r af fi davi ts su bm itt ed

by the de fen da nt s. Se e id

. at 1538 (In consid ering a re m oval alleging fra udul ent j oind er,

“ the c ourt m ay

c onsi de r af

fi da vit s a nd d ep osi tio n tr an sc ri pt s su bm itt ed by the p a rt i e s . ” )
. T h e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ a f

f i d a v its in Cr o we we re properly before the district12

court, and “ we [took] them into account in deciding the lim ited questio n of whether a p os si bi li ty exi st s t ha t Pl ai nt iff s h av e st at eda . . . caus e o f act io n a ga in st Co le m an .” Id

. a t 1 5 4 1
. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt e rr edin Cr o we be ca use it r es olv ed the c as e in the d e f e n d a n t s ’ f

a v o r wh e n t h e r e we r e s w o rn s t a t e me n t s s ub mi t t e db y both the defendants and the plain tiffs . In the case a t bar, the De fendants sub m itted sworn af fi da vit s th at

w er e undi sput ed

a nd, in suc h ac as e, ac ourt c an not r es olve the que sti on o f fr au dul en t j oin de r by re fu sin g to co nsi de r the de fe nda nts ’ sub m iss ion s. But that is clearly

what the district court did. I n doin g so, the district court com m itted
a le ga l erro r, an d a le ga l erro r is an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. See W exler , 385 F. 3d a t 13 38. T he distri ct co ur t ar ti cu la te d a no th er rea so n fo r igno ri ng W ea ve r’ s a ff ida vit and
rem anding the case to state court. The district c ourt r easoned that even if W eaver had
no pr e- publ ic ity

kno w le dge tha t R ed

ux m ay c au se va lvu la r he ar

t di se as e, she m igh t sti ll be li ab le in A la

ba m a cou rt s for inn oc en t or n eg lig en t m isr ep re se nta tio n. B ut o n t h i s r e c o r d , t h i s c o n c l u s i o n h a s n o s up p o rt i n A l ab a m a la w . I n Fish er v. Come r Pla nt at io n, In c., 772 So. 2d 455 (A la. 200 0), the Alabam a Sup rem e Court held that

“ tho se w ho are onl y

c ondu its thr ough w hic h f au lty inf orm at ion is supp lie d by

one pe rs on to a th ird pe rs on can no t b e he ld li ab le fo r frau d un le ss th ey act edin ba d fa it h.” Id

. at 463. A ssu m ing tha t W ea ve r inn oc en tly pa sse d oninc or

re ct inf orm at ionabout Redux t o Carl L egg’ s phy sician, under F ish er she c oul d no t be li ab le f or inn oc en t13

m isr ep re se nta tio n . See al so M ont gom er y R ubbe r & G ask

et Co

. v . B el

m ont M ac h. Co ., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1293 , 1298 (M. D. Ala . 2004) (“ At m ost, [plaintiff] alleges that [defendan t ag en t] wa s an innocent con duit th rough which [defendant seller] de fr au de d [ pla int if

f]
. A s [ the de fe nda nt a g e n t ] c o r r e c t l y n o t e s , f o r w ar de d in fo rm at ion that is incorr ect cannot form the basis of liabilityunless th e inform ation was re lay ed in b ad f ai th. ”) ( ci tin g Fisher , 77 2 S o. 2 d a t 4 63 ). T he P la int if

fs , in the ir

c om pl ai nt, a lle ge tha t “ [e ] ac h of the [ d] ef

en da nts
ne gli ge ntl y

a nd r ec kle ssl y re pr es en te d
. . . tha t Re dux w as sa fe to ing es t a nd tha t the uti lity of Re dux outw ei ghe d any r isk in use f or the int en de d pu rp ose of

w ei ght los s
or c ont ro l. ” ( R. 1- 1 E x. A
. a t ¶ 83. ) A sto nis hin gly , the P la int if fs m ak e thi s a lle ga tio n ag ai nst all

the indiv idual Defe ndants, includi ng Stacy Stubblefield, who swore under oath that he never prom oted or sold Redux. T his sworn statem ent was never dispu ted by the P la int if

fs
. W ithno ev ide nc e tha t S tub ble fi el d ha d a nythi ng t o do w ithRe dux, the re is no re as ona

ble poss ibi lity tha t Pla int if fs can esta

bli sh a c au se of

a ct iona ga ins t hi m forne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on un de r Ala ba m a la w. Nor is there any

rea sonable poss ibility , based on thi s record, that Plaintiffs can
es ta bli sh a c au se o f ac tio n f

or ne gli ge nt m isr ep re se nta tio n a ga ins t B et sy W ea ve r. T he A la ba m a Su pr em e Co urt ha s ad opt ed the Re sta te m en t (S ec ond) of T orts § 552 ( 1997 )
as th e la w of Al ab am a in cas es in vo lv in g n eg li ge nt m is rep res en ta ti on . F ish er , 77214

So
. 2d a t 46 1 ( ci tin g B oy ki n v . A rth ur A nde rse n & Co

. , 639 S o. 2d 50 4, 509-10 (Ala. 1 9 9 5 )) . In ap p l yin g t h e e l emen t s o f t h e c l ai m fr o m t h e R es t at emen t , Al ab ama’s Suprem e Court instructs that liability for negligent m isrepresentation is “ predicated
u p o n t h e ex i s t ence of a

duty .” Fisher , 772 S o. 2d a t 46 3 ( ci tin g Co lon ial B ank of Ala ba ma v. R idl ey & Sc hw ei gert , 551 So. 2d 39 0, 395 (Ala . 1989)). T o hold an
em plo y ee of ac or por at ion pe rs ona lly lia

ble f or the ne gli ge nt a ct s of

the c or por at ion ,

“ there m ust have been upo n his part such a breach of duty as contributed to, or helped br in g a bo u t, t he in

jury; th at is to say, he m

us t b e a p art ic ip an t i n t he wron gf ul act .” Cr ig le r v. S

al ac , 438 So
. 2d 1 375, 138 0 ( A la
. 1983 ) (quot ing F le tc he r’ s C yc lop edia of C orpo rat ion s § 11 37 a t 20 8 ( 1975 )) ; s ee also Turner v. Hayes , 719 So
. 2d 1 184, 1188 ( A la
. Ci v. A pp. 199 7) ( “ [C ] or por at e em

plo y ee s are liable pe rs ona lly f or the
w ro ngf ul a ctio n of

the c om pa ny or it s othe r em

plo y ee s on ly

if the y pe rs ona lly participate in the tort.”)
. Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence th at We aver kn ew of any valvular he ar t di se as e ri sk, nor

ha ve P la int if

fs pr es en te d a ny

e vid en ce to supp ort t he a lle ga tio n tha t W ea ve r shou ld h av e know n of thi s r isk
. W ith ou t this e vid en ce , the re is no
re as ona ble pos sib ili ty

that a n A la

ba m a co urt w oul d c onc lud e tha t W ea ve r pe rs ona lly b re ac h ed a d u t y t o t h e P l ai n t i ff s . If Wy et h kn ew o r s h o u l dh av e kn o wn o f R ed u x ’s ha rm fu l e ffe ct s a nd d id n ot t el l W ea ve r, tha t m igh t be aba sis f or ac la im a ga ins tThe potential for leg al l iability “must be reasonable , not merely theore tical.” Great Plains 5 Trust Co v. Morgan Stanley De an W itter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 1992). I n considering pos s i b l e state law c laims, possibl e must mean “ more than suc h a possibility that a desig nated residenc e ca

n be hit by a meteor tonight. That i s possible. Surely , as i n other instance s, rea son and common sense ha

ve some role .” B r a d

e n v . W y e th , C V-04-PT-235- E (N.D. A la. J une 30, 2004). With ou t any e vid e nc e that Weave r kne w or sh ou ld have kn ow n Red ux wa s d ang e ro us , it

is h ard to conclude , applying r eason a nd common sense, that the Plaintiffs hav e a v i able c laim ag ainst her under A labama la

w. 15 Wy eth, but

it w oul d no t su

ppor t t he c onc lus ion th at W eav er he rs el f “ pe rs ona lly pa rti ci pa te d in th e to rt” or b reac he d a du ty to t he Pla in ti ffs
. See Turner , 719 So
. 2d at 1188. Quite sim

ply , there is no reasonable basis to predict that an Alabam a court
w oul d f ind W eave r, a s a n in div idu al e m plo y ee , pe rs onal lyli ab le f or a ny w ro ngf ul
ac tio n by Wy eth inthe abse nc e of

e vid en ce tha t W ea ve r ei the r kne w or sho uld ha ve know n of Re dux’ s a lle ge dly

da nge ro us e ff

ec ts. 5 T he r em ova l pr oc es s w as cr ea te d by Co ngr es s to pr ote ct

de fe nda nts
. C ongr es s

“ did not extend such p rotection with one hand, and with the other give plaintiffs a bag of tricks to overcom e it.” McKi nn ey v. Bd. o f Tr us te es of

May la nd Cmty . Col l., 955 F. 2d 9 24, 928 ( 4th Ci r. 199 2) ( quot ing McK inney v. Bd. of T

rustees of Mayland Cmty. Co ll. , 713 F
. Su

pp. 185, 189 (W
. D
. N
. C. 198 9) ). A s th e Su pr em e Co urt l ong ag o adm oni she d, “ the F ed er al c ourts should n ot s an ct ionde vic es int en de d to pr ev en t a
re m ova l t o aF ed er al c ourt w he re one ha s tha t ri ght , a nd s houl d be e qua lly vig ilant t o protect the right to proceed in the Federal c ourt.” W ec ke r v . Na t’ l E

nameli ng & St amp in g C

o., 204 U.S . 176, 186, 27 S. Ct. 184, 188 (190 7). Given that the rec ord16

supp orts W y eth’ s allegation that these sales repre sentatives were fra udul ently j oined by the Plaintiffs, there w as n othin g “ im providen t” o r un reasonable in Wy eth’ s effort to rem ov e th is cas e to fed eral co ur t. See F owler , 915F.2d. at 616. Thus, the district
co urt a buse d it s di sc re tio n ina w ar din g a tto rn ey s’ f ee s a nd c ost s to the P la int if fs
. V. CONCLUSION T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t co urt aw ar din g the L eg gs at tor ne y s’ fe es a nd c ost s is REVERSED.