KELLER LOGISTICS GROUP, INC. v. NAVISTAR, 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: A federal court denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand a case to state court, finding the plaintiff acted in bad faith by strategically including a non-diverse defendant for over a year solely to prevent the primary defendant from removing the case to federal court.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the “bad faith” exception to the one-year limit on removal for diversity cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1), holding that direct admissions and a pattern of litigation conduct can prove a plaintiff’s intent to thwart federal jurisdiction.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs, Ohio corporations, sued Navistar (a Delaware/Illinois corporation) and its Ohio-based dealer (the Dealer) in Ohio state court in 2016. The presence of the Dealer, a non-diverse defendant, prevented Navistar from removing the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Prior to filing suit, the plaintiff’s principal admitted to the Dealer’s principal that his attorney advised him to name the Dealer as a defendant specifically “in order to keep the suit in Ohio instead of Federal Court.” For over two years, Plaintiffs engaged in minimal discovery against the Dealer, conducted no depositions of its employees, and never entered settlement discussions. In March 2019, nearly two and a half years after the case commenced and while a summary judgment motion was pending, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Dealer. Navistar immediately removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that removal was barred by the one-year time limit in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). Navistar opposed, invoking the statute’s exception for cases where the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a plaintiff act in bad faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1), thereby permitting removal more than one year after commencement, by joining and retaining a non-diverse defendant with the admitted purpose of preventing removal to federal court?
Yes. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the defendant 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 vol
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
Does a plaintiff act in bad faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1), thereby permitting removal more than one year after commencement, by joining and retaining a non-diverse defendant with the admitted purpose of preventing removal to federal court?
Conclusion
This case establishes that courts will look past the pleadings to a 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 ni
Legal Rule
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1), a case may not be removed on 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on whether the plaintiff's conduct constituted bad faith 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant may remove a diversity case more than one year