Vaillancourt v. PNC Bank, National Ass'n, 771 F.3d 843

Vaillancourt and Vaillancourt purchased property in Laredo, TX with a deed of trust and note later assigned to PNC Bank's predecessor.
In 2010 Vaillancourt entered mortgage modification and in 2013 sought mortgage assistance from PNC; foreclosure occurred on June 4, 2013.
Vaillancourt allegedly did not receive notice of the foreclosure sale, while PNC produced certified mail receipts and an affidavit asserting compliance with notices.
Vaillancourt sued in Texas state court July 15, 2013 alleging two federal claims and six state-law claims; PNC moved to dismiss all claims.
In 2014 the district court dismissed the federal claims, held Substitute Trustees were properly joined blocking complete diversity, and remanded the six state-law claims; the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over them.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the district court had diversity jurisdiction because non-diverse defendants were improperly joined, making remand improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claims at remand.	Vaillancourt argues improper joinder of in-state defendants destroyed diversity.	PNC contends the non-diverse defendants were improperly joined, so diversity existed.	Yes; improper joinder meant diversity existed, so remand was improper.
Whether the district court properly declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims.	Vaillancourt contends the court could have retained jurisdiction over state claims.	PNC argues the court erred in remanding the state claims when it had diversity.	The court's remand was improper because diversity existed over the state claims.
Whether the district court acted within its jurisdiction to determine joinder under the applicable standards.	Vaillancourt asserts proper adherence to joinder standards.	PNC asserts plaintiff was improperly joined and the court correctly pierced joinder analysis.	Yes; improper joinder was shown, giving rise to original jurisdiction.

Cuevas v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 648 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard for determining diversity when there is potential improper joinder)
Adair v. Lease Partners, Inc., 587 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2009) (mandatory jurisdiction and review of remand decisions)
McDonald v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2005) (improper joinder analysis and evidence standards)
Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc; framework for determining whether joinder is proper)
Regan v. Starcraft Marine, LLC, 524 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2008) (discusses reviewability of remand decisions)
Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077 (5th Cir. 2008) (pertains to improper joinder and diversity analysis)