Diversity jurisdiction; 28 USC § 1332; Removal; § 1441(a); Motion to remand; The “fraudulent-joinder doctrine”; Whether the complaint alleged a “colorable claim” against the one non-diverse defendant

The court affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs-investors’ motion to remand under the fraudulent-joinder doctrine, holding that there was no “colorable claim” against the single non-diverse defendant. Plaintiffs sued defendant-PNC and a PNC employee, Koutrodimos, in state court related to the loss of millions they had invested with a nonparty’s (A) investment companies. A had created accounts for his companies at PNC. Plaintiffs’ claims against Koutrodimos were based on allegations that he aided A. PNC removed the case to federal court, asserting that “no colorable cause of action existed against Koutrodimos, the sole non-diverse defendant[.]” The district court agreed, dismissed Koutrodimos from the case, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand. It also dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court reviewed the principles of the fraudulent-joinder doctrine and held that the “four claims against Koutrodimos fall well short of colorable[.]” Without his “citizenship, federal diversity jurisdiction exists over this lawsuit, and PNC permissibly removed it to federal court.” The court further held that the district court “correctly granted PNC’s motion to dismiss the remaining claims against it” because, among other things, the complaint failed “to satisfy Federal Civil Rules 8 and 9(b)[.]”