Anderson
Anderson v. Bayer Corp.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
This memorandum applies to the parties listed in Exhibit A.
James E. Anderson, et al. appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their action, 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., 875 F.8d 831, 838, amended by 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir.2004), did not show that the joint 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 complaint. Assuming (without needing to decide) that Mississippi requires knowledge on the part of retailers or pharmacists, paragraphs 70, 73 and 118 of the complaint sufficiently aver it for purposes of notice pleading. Miss. R. Civ. P. 8(a). We are not obliged to follow federal district court decisions upon which Bayer relies, but in any event do not read them as controlling here given the specific allegations in Anderson’s complaints.