Adkins v. BioTE Medical, LLC, 2:21-cv-00636

Plaintiff filed suit in Kanawha County Circuit Court on Oct. 23, 2021, alleging hormone-replacement therapy caused elevated hormones and cancer; initial complaint named only BioTE Medical, LLC (Texas).
Plaintiff began West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) pre-suit procedures as to Dr. William Jarod Chapman and Living Well Medical Center, PLLC (LWMC), and delayed adding/serving in-state defendants while MPLA tolling was ongoing.
BioTE removed the case to federal court on Dec. 6, 2021 (before service on BioTE); plaintiff amended the complaint on Jan. 10, 2022 to add Dr. Chapman and LWMC (both West Virginia residents).
Amendment would destroy complete diversity and require remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) unless joinder is denied; BioTE opposed joinder as an attempt to defeat federal jurisdiction and argued plaintiff was dilatory.
The court concluded plaintiff’s delay stemmed from MPLA pre-suit requirements, not jurisdictional gamesmanship, and that joinder and remand promoted judicial efficiency and avoided inconsistent rulings.
Court ordered joinder of Dr. Chapman and LWMC and remanded the case to Kanawha County Circuit Court (Order entered Mar. 25, 2022).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to permit post-removal joinder of nondiverse WV defendants (forcing remand under §1447(e))	Named only BioTE initially to preserve limitations while MPLA tolling ran; intended to join in-state providers after MPLA so all claims proceed together in state court	Plaintiff intentionally delayed service and amendment to avoid removal; joinder is to defeat federal jurisdiction and is prejudicial to BioTE	Court allowed joinder and remanded: delay attributed to MPLA procedural requirements, not fraud; equities and efficiency favor remand

Higgins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162 (4th Cir. 1998) (diversity must exist at time of removal)
Strawn v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 530 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2008) (party seeking removal bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1994) (burden of proving jurisdiction on removing party)
Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 1999) (factors for §1447(e) joinder decisions and recognition of fraudulent joinder consideration)
Gum v. Gen. Elec. Co., 5 F. Supp. 2d 412 (S.D.W. Va. 1998) (articulating equitable factors relevant to post-removal joinder)