Case Explained: IN RE: ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al., PRETERM INFANT NUTRITION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION TERRAINE ABDULLAH, on her own behalf and as Parent and Natural Guardian of H.S., a minor v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY LLC, et al

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-07-28 The seventh-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the non-diverse defendant, Pennsylvania Hospital, was not fraudulently joined. The court applied the established standard for fraudulent joinder, which permits removal only in two situations: where the plaintiff has lied about jurisdictional facts or where the plaintiff has no chance of success against the non-diverse defendant after resolving all issues of fact and law in the plaintiff’s favor. The court reasoned that the district court erred by expanding this doctrine to include a subjective inquiry into whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a “real intention in good faith” to prosecute the action, based on their litigation conduct such as the timing of depositions and statements regarding appeals. The court held that such an inquiry is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the principle that federal diversity jurisdiction must be construed narrowly to respect state court authority and plaintiff choice of forum. Consequently, the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, requiring the district court to recognize that the presence of the non-diverse hospital defendant prevents removal under the doctrine of complete diversity. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.