Gentle v. Lamb-Weston, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Plaintiffs assigned a tiny fraction of their claims to an in-state party solely to destroy diversity and prevent removal to federal court. The court deemed this a “sham transaction” and refused to remand, protecting its jurisdiction.
Legal Significance: Establishes that federal courts may disregard partial, colorable assignments made for the sole purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction, treating them as a fraudulent device intended to evade a defendant’s statutory right to a federal forum.
Gentle v. Lamb-Weston, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Multiple Maine potato farmers sued an Oregon corporation for breach of contract in Maine state court. To prevent the defendant from removing the case to federal court on diversity of citizenship grounds, the plaintiffs assigned 1/100th of each of their claims to an Oregon citizen, George Tamblyn. Tamblyn was a law school classmate of the plaintiffs’ attorney, had no prior interest in the litigation, and took the assignment as an accommodation for nominal consideration. The plaintiffs’ counsel candidly admitted that the sole purpose of this partial assignment was to destroy complete diversity of citizenship, thereby precluding federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Despite the presence of an Oregon plaintiff and an Oregon defendant on the face of the complaint, the defendant removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand the case to state court, arguing the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a federal court disregard a partial, colorable assignment of a claim, made for the sole purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction, and deny a motion to remand the case to state court?
Yes. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for remand, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nis
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May a federal court disregard a partial, colorable assignment of a claim, made for the sole purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction, and deny a motion to remand the case to state court?
Conclusion
This case provides significant, though not universally adopted, authority for federal courts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, q
Legal Rule
A federal court may protect its jurisdiction by disregarding a partial, colorable, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip e
Legal Analysis
The court acknowledged that while 28 U.S.C. § 1359 explicitly bars collusive Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Plaintiffs, Maine citizens, assigned a 1/100th share of their claims to