Bradley Timberland Resources v. Bradley Lumber Company, 712 F.3d 401

Webster extended a $6 million revolving credit line to Bradley Lumber secured in part by Bradley Timberland's woodlands.
Bradley Lumber defaulted; Bradley Timberland sued Webster and Bradley Lumber in Arkansas state court for fraud and interference with business expectancy, then Webster removed to federal court.
The district court found Bradley Lumber fraudulently joined to defeat diversity and denied remand; it dismissed Bradley Timberland's claims as time-barred.
Bradley Timberland appealed the denial of remand and the dismissal, and challenged the denial of its motion for reconsideration.
The court affirmed the district court's remand denial, dismissal, and denial of reconsideration.
Bradley Timberland now challenges the timeliness and procedural posture of the federal action as well as the merits of the underlying state-law claims

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bradley Lumber was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity	Bradley Timberland argues Bradley Lumber is a proper defendant with viable Arkansas claims.	Bradley Lumber had no misrepresentation liability; common ownership negates any potential constructive fraud.	Yes, fraudulent joinder; no reasonable basis for Bradley Lumber liability.
Whether remand was proper given fraudulent joinder	Remand required because not all defendants joined in removal.	Consent not required due to fraudulent joinder; removal valid.	Remand denied; removal proper.
Whether Bradley Timberland's claims were time-barred	Accrual occurred in fall 2007; suit filed August 2011 is timely under Arkansas law.	Accrual occurred in fall 2007 and the three-year limit expired fall 2010.	Claims time-barred; district court did not err in dismissal.
Whether the motion for reconsideration was properly denied	New evidence shows mis-timing; should be reconsidered.	Newly offered evidence could have been offered earlier; reconsideration appropriate only for manifest errors.	No abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Wilkinson v. Shackelford, 478 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (fraudulent joinder and remand standards; resolve doubts in favor of remand)
Yarborough v. DeVilbiss Air Power, Inc., 321 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2003) (elements of actual and constructive fraud under Arkansas law)
Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2010) (plausibility standard for stating a claim; Twombly/Iqbal guidance)
Varner v. Peterson Farms, 371 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (statute of limitations accrual for tort claims; discovery not required for accrual)
O'Mara v. Dykema, 942 S.W.2d 854 (Ark. 1997) (Arkansas three-year limitations for torts; accrual at wrong occurring)