Opinion ID: 7393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of District Court's Examination

Text: 12 Burden argues that the district court erred in looking beyond the pleadings in determining that Riney and Davis were fraudulently joined. He contends that a conflict exists within our court's jurisprudence on the question whether only the pleadings should be considered in a fraudulent joinder claim or whether the court may instead pierce the pleadings and examine affidavits and other evidentiary material as well. In support of his position, Burden cites to Green v. Amerada Hess Corp. 14 13 In Green, we reversed the district court's denial of a motion for remand to the state court, finding that the court erred in conducting a full evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed factual issues relating to matters of substance rather than jurisdiction. We observed that, in considering a claim of fraudulent joinder, the court must normally assume all the facts as set forth by the plaintiff to be true. 15 The ambit of our holding in Green is not so broad, however, as to dictate that a district court must look solely at the pleadings in determining whether a plaintiff has any possibility of recovery in state court against the non-diverse parties whose joinder is questioned. Green merely teaches that the district court should not conduct a full-scale evidentiary hearing on questions of fact, but rather should make a summary determination by resolving disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff. 14 We clearly expressed in B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co. 16 that [i]n support of ... [a] motion for remand, the plaintiff may submit affidavits and deposition transcripts along with the factual allegations contained in the verified complaint. 17 Our decisions subsequent to B., Inc. have consistently maintained that a district court may look to evidence outside of the pleadings in determining a fraudulent joinder claim. 18 Thus, we hold that the district court did not err in looking beyond Burden's pleadings to determine removal jurisdiction. Lest there remain even a shadow of a doubt as to this circuit's position, we reiterate--in hopes that further pronouncement will not be necessary--that in testing for fraudulent joinder the district court in its discretion may pierce the pleadings, albeit in so doing the court should not conduct an evidentiary hearing but, based on appropriate documentation in addition to the pleadings, should instead resolve all disputed questions of fact in favor of the plaintiff. 15