## Facts

- Mark Filla, a Missouri citizen, was injured in a collision with a train at a private railroad crossing in Missouri.
- Filla sued Norfolk Southern Railway Company, a Virginia citizen, in Missouri state court seeking damages.
- Filla amended his pleading to add Missouri defendants, including Skyline Motors, Inc. and Darlene March, alleged adjacent landowners, and Patrick Connaughton, alleged owner of a nearby paintball business.
- Filla alleged the adjacent landowners failed to manage or maintain property conditions near the crossing and that Connaughton failed to warn business invitees about dangerous conditions near the crossing.
- Norfolk removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and asserted the Missouri defendants were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review a district court order remanding a removed case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. What standard governs fraudulent joinder in a removed diversity case, including how a federal court should treat uncertain questions of state law at the jurisdictional stage.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal and denied mandamus, concluding it lacked authority to review the remand order.
- The court determined the district court’s remand was based on lack of complete diversity (a jurisdictional ground), triggering the bar on appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
- In explaining fraudulent joinder, the court stated joinder is not fraudulent if there is arguably a reasonable basis to predict state law might impose liability on the non-diverse defendant under the alleged facts.

## Legal Principles

- A remand order based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not reviewable “on appeal or otherwise” under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); mandamus cannot be used to circumvent that bar.
- Fraudulent joinder exists only when there is no reasonable basis in fact and law supporting a claim against the non-diverse defendant.
- If there is arguably a reasonable basis for predicting that state law might impose liability on the facts alleged, the joinder is not fraudulent and the case must be remanded.
- In assessing fraudulent joinder, federal courts must not decide the merits of close or uncertain state-law questions; doubts about federal jurisdiction are resolved in favor of remand.

## Conclusion

Because the district court remanded on jurisdictional grounds after finding at least some non-diverse defendants were not fraudulently joined, § 1447(d) barred appellate review, requiring dismissal and denial of mandamus; the opinion also instructs that fraudulent joinder fails whenever state-law liability is arguably possible on the pleaded facts.


Filla v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2003)