Ingram

MEMORANDUM *

Fannie Burrage, et al. appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their action against Bayer Corporation, et al., arguing that removal jurisdiction is lacking. We agree, and reverse.

Bayer, whose burden it is to establish removal jurisdiction, California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir.2004), did not show that the joint amended complaint obviously fails to state a cause of action under Mississippi law against resident defendants, see McCabe v. Gen. Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir.1987) (establishing standard for fraudulent joinder). No evidence was presented to pierce the pleadings, therefore we look only to the allegations in the complaints. Assuming (without needing to decide) that Mississippi requires knowledge on the part of retailers or pharmacists for product liability claims, paragraphs 27, 44, 63, 79, and 94 of the complaint sufficiently aver it for purposes of notice pleading. Miss. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-63. We cannot say that conflicting allegations elsewhere in the complaint obviously render the claim futile. Nor are we obliged to follow federal district…