Opinion ID: 2434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Decisions of the District Courts

Text: In its opinion for dismissal, the Mississippi District Court first observed that federal diversity jurisdiction cannot be defeated by the improper joinder of an in-state defendant and that there is improper joinder where (1) there is actual fraud in pleading jurisdictional facts; or (2) the plaintiff is unable to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant. Bounds v. Pine Belt Mental Health Care Res., No. 2:07cv356, 2008 WL 552865, at  (S.D.Miss. Feb.27, 2008). The court further noted that, unless there is a reasonable basis for liability, a non-diverse defendant cannot remain in the lawsuit. Id. Turning to the provisions of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, the Mississippi District Court reviewed the notice requirements of that statute, said to provide the exclusive remedy in suits against Mississippi governmental entities such as Pine Belt (and to employees acting within the scope of their employment). Id. at . The court found that Bounds failed to comply with at least four of the seven categories of the notice requirement in the letter provided by his attorney as quoted above. The court concluded that these failures were serious enough to defeat any possibility of Bounds' recovery against the in-state defendants despite Bounds' claim that he had substantially complied with the requirements. The Mississippi District Court concluded its opinion as follows: The MTCA [Mississippi Tort Claims Act] establishes rigid and inflexible notice requirements for plaintiffs who plan to pursue litigation against the state. Although state courts have excused plaintiffs who offered meager responses to each of the seven statutory categories, no state court has excused a plaintiff who wholly ignored one or more of the items required. Bound's failure to comply with Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2) leaves no reasonable basis upon which this Court could predict that he might recover against the in-state Defendants. Their joinder to this action is therefore improper, and the in-state Defendants should be dismissed, while the motion to remand should be denied. Id. at . Bounds moved for reconsideration of the Mississippi District Court's judgment, but before the District Court could rule on the motion, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by the Multi-District Litigation Panel as part of the Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation. See In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 239 F.R.D. 316 (E.D.N.Y.2007). It therefore fell to Judge Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York, to whom the Multi-District Litigation was assigned, to decide the motion for reconsideration. Judge Weinstein denied the motion, retaining the action against Eli Lilly alone in the Eastern District. In his June 18, 2000 order denying the motion, Judge Weinstein wrote as follows: No facts or controlling decisions were overlooked by the Mississippi federal court. Subject matter jurisdiction lies in federal court and the case was properly transferred to this court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider is denied. In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 04-MD-1596, 08-cv-1364, 2008 WL 2466208, at  (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2008). It is from this Order that Bounds now appeals, having filed his Notice of Appeal on July 10, 2008. Thereafter, by Stipulation and Order of Dismissal dated December 11, 2008, all claims asserted against Eli Lilly in this action were dismissed with prejudice. Having filed a timely Notice of Appeal, Bounds asserts the following arguments here.