The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist to determine whether a final order issued by a federal court may stand if an appellate court later determines the district court erred in dismissing a nondiverse defendant and denying a motion to remand.1
In Hain, the plaintiffs (Palmquists) brought product-liability and breach-of-warranty claims against baby-food manufacturer Hain Celestial Group and grocery retailer Whole Foods in Texas state court, alleging injuries related to heavy metals in Earth's Best Organic Products.2 Hain removed the case, arguing that because the Palmquists' state-court complaint could not state a viable claim against Whole Foods (a Texas corporation), Whole Foods had been improperly joined and, therefore, diversity jurisdiction existed.3] Notwithstanding subsequent amendment "clarifying" the complaint by the plaintiffs, the district court agreed with Hain, dismissed Whole Foods, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand.4
After Whole Foods was dismissed, a jury trial was held over the claims between the Palmquists and Hain, and the district court ultimately granted Hain's motion for a judgment as a matter of law, holding that the plaintiffs had presented "no evidence on general causation."5The Palmquists appealed, arguing that their state-court complaint had always alleged a viable claim against Whole Foods and the case should never have been tried in federal court.6The Fifth Circuit agreed and both reversed the judgment denying remand and vacated the district court's final judgment between Hain and the Palmquists.7] In vacating the final judgment, the Fifth Circuit rejected Hain's argument that the judgment should be preserved because diversity jurisdiction existed at the time judgment was entered.8
Hain petitioned for certiorari, identifying a circuit split on the issue, with three circuits (the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth) holding that when a district court errs by dismissing a nondiverse party and declining to remand a case and the case then proceeds to final judgment with completely diverse parties, the final judgment should be preserved. In contrast, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have now held that in those circumstances, the judgment must be vacated.9
Hain argues that vacating judgments in this situation "guarantees that enormous judicial and party resources will go to waste in those circuits."10As the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. notes in its amicus brief, "[t]hose...
