Universal Truck & Equipment Co. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 653 F. App'x 15

New London purchased heavy equipment from Caterpillar Financial; several other plaintiffs signed personal guarantees. New London defaulted and later defaulted on renegotiated terms.
Plaintiffs (all Rhode Island citizens) sued Caterpillar Financial, Caterpillar, Inc., Southworth (dealer), board members, and Southworth employee Peter D’Agostino (a Rhode Island citizen) in Rhode Island state court for breach of contract and related claims.
State court dismissed claims against individual defendants (including D’Agostino). Before a 54(b) final judgment, Caterpillar Financial, Caterpillar, Inc., and Southworth removed to federal court asserting complete diversity, arguing D’Agostino was fraudulently joined.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing the dismissal of D’Agostino was not a voluntary act of theirs and the removal was untimely; defendants countered with fraudulent-joinder and timeliness defenses.
The district court denied remand (finding fraudulent joinder), granted summary judgment for defendants, awarded Southworth fees as sanction, later entered judgment awarding Caterpillar Financial damages and fees, and plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand was required because removal was untimely	Removal was untimely; defendants should have removed only after an effective final dismissal; their fraudulent-joinder theory was raised too late	D’Agostino was fraudulently joined; defendants could and should have removed on diversity from the start	Affirmed: fraudulent joinder justified federal jurisdiction; plaintiffs waived a timeliness objection below; remand denial stands
Whether the panel’s prior decision (Universal I) binds this panel (law-of-the-case)	Universal I was wrong: it misstated that plaintiffs did not argue untimeliness and mischaracterized district court’s basis for denial	Universal I is controlling; plaintiffs fail to show blatant error or miscarriage of justice to avoid law-of-the-case	Affirmed: law-of-the-case applies; plaintiffs did not meet the narrow exception for revisiting prior panel ruling
Whether summary judgment for defendants was proper	Plaintiffs’ claims survived summary judgment	Defendants showed no colorable claims remained; summary judgment appropriate	Affirmed: district court’s detailed reasoning adopted; summary judgment upheld
Whether attorney-fee awards were proper	Fees were improper or excessive	Fees were authorized by contract, state law, or court’s inherent power; plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous/bad faith	Affirmed: fee awards sustained for reasons explained by the district court

Universal Truck & Equip. Co. v. Southworth–Milton, Inc., 765 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of remand based on fraudulent joinder)
McKenna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 693 F.3d 207 (1st Cir. 2012) (diversity-jurisdiction and removal standards)
United States v. Matthews, 643 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2011) (law-of-the-case doctrine explained)
United States v. Moran, 393 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (standard for finding prior ruling blatantly erroneous)
Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., 328 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (limits on raising new arguments on reconsideration)
Moses v. Mele, 711 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2013) (deference to well-reasoned district-court opinions)