Junk Ex Rel. T.J. v. Terminix International Co.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25134
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Junk sued Terminix, Dow, and Breneman in Iowa state court for injuries to her son from exposure to Dursban (chlorpyrifos) and removal to federal court asserted on diversity grounds.
- Junk and Breneman were both Iowa citizens, triggering removal; Breneman was later dismissed as a nondiverse defendant and claimed to be fraudulently joined to defeat diversity.
- The district court denied remand, held Breneman's joinder was fraudulent, and later granted summary judgment for Dow and Terminix; Junk appealed.
- Pretrial rulings excluded Dr. Fenske’s toxic-exposure testimony and Dr. Bearer’s specific-causation testimony, and excluded an EPA report; Junk challenged those exclusions as error.
- After those rulings, the district court granted summary judgment for Dow and Terminix on all claims; the court retained Breneman’s claim to be remanded to state court; the jury trial issue was preserved but not decided on appeal.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed the Breneman dismissal and remanded, affirmed the summary judgment for Dow and Terminix, and addressed the evidentiary rulings and remand standards under fraudulent-joinder vs. Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand was proper given Breneman’s fraudulent-joinder defense | Junk argues Breneman lacks colorable claim under Iowa law | Dow/Terminix contend Breneman’s joinder is fraudulent to defeat diversity | Remand reversed; Breneman’s claim remanded to state court |
| Standard for evaluating fraudulent joinder in remand/removal | Filla standard governs fraudulent-joinder analysis | Rule 12(b)(6) standard applies | Filla standard applied for fraudulent-joinder, remand reversed if colorable claim exists against Breneman |
| Whether district court properly excluded Dr. Fenske’s testimony | Fenske’s analysis could show exposure levels and causation | Methodology unreliable; data insufficient under Daubert | Exclusion affirmed; no reversible error in preclusion of Dr. Fenske’s opinion |
| Whether district court properly excluded Dr. Bearer’s specific-causation testimony | Bearer could establish specific causation independent of Fenske | Bearer reliance on excluded Fenske analysis; scientifically invalid without data | Exclusion affirmed; no reversible error in excluding Bearer |
| Whether EPA report was admissible; Rule 803(8)(C) or Rule 703 | Report supports causation evidence | Report lacks trustworthiness and probative value | Exclusion affirmed; report not admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Filla v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.2003) (fraudulent-joinder standard; arguably reasonable basis for liability)
- Wilkinson v. Shackelford, 478 F.3d 957 (8th Cir.2007) (follow fraudulent-joinder approach; remand when colorable claim exists)
- Menz v. New Holland North America, Inc., 440 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir.2006) (apply Filla standard to fraudulent-joinder, then review dismissal)
- Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613 (8th Cir.2010) (resolve remand questions; preserve remand preference)
- Simpson v. Thomure, 484 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.2007) (discusses scope of fraudulent-joinderStandard vs immunity context)
- Hartig v. Francois, 519 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 1994) (employee negligence limits; deviation required to reach beyond employer’s instructions)
- Wright v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1105 (8th Cir.1996) (noting methodological rigor in exposure assessments)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (Daubert standard; admissibility depends on reliability of methodology)