Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, No. 14-30925 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter William Davidson was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he filed suit against numerous defendants that he contended were responsible for his exposure to asbestos. After Davidson died, Davidson’s estate and family did not substitute as proper plaintiffs. Instead, a motion to dismiss was filed and granted without prejudice. Meanwhile, plaintiffs filed the instant survival and wrongful death action bringing similar claims to those in the first suit. All of the defendants in Davidson II were parties to Davidson I with the exception of the nondiverse Louisiana Defendants whose joinder is contested in this appeal: Graves and Taylor. Georgia-Pacific timely removed this case on the ground that the Louisiana citizenship of Graves and Taylor should be ignored because they had been improperly joined. Plaintiffs sought remand. The magistrate judge issued an order granting the motion to remand. After piercing the pleadings, the district court concluded that Graves and Taylor had been improperly joined and dismissed Graves and Taylor with prejudice. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge only the denial of their motion to remand. Addressing an issue of first impression, the court held that a motion to remand is a dispositive matter on which a magistrate judge should enter a recommendation to the district court subject to de novo review. In light of the district court’s discretion in deciding whether to pierce the pleadings, it was not error to do so here given the unusual procedural posture of this case that meant there was already a lengthy record at the outset of this second lawsuit. However, the district court erred in applying the improper joinder standard to that record. The court did not believe that the existence of a developed record in the first lawsuit warrants expanding the improper joinder standard to allow the absence of evidence alone to satisfy it. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.