v. Exxon Corp., 860 F.Supp. 332 (M.D.La.1994). 29 . Mitchell, 860 F.Supp. at 335. 30 . Corriere v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 893 F.2d 98 (citing B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545, 549 n. 9 (5th Cir.1981)). 31 . Bourque v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 906 F.Supp. 348 (M.D.La.1995). 32 . 893 F.2d 98, 101 (5th Cir.1990). See also Mitchell, 860 F.Supp. at 336. 33 . Bourque, 906 F.Supp. at 352 (citing Tapia v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 590 So.2d 806 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991)); Bankston v. BASF Corp., 827 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (citing Waldrop v. Vistron Corp., 391 So.2d 1274 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980)); Courtney v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 385 So.2d 391 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 386 So.2d 359 (1980). In Bourque, Judge Parker found "[k]nowledge by an employer that it utiliz a.1994) (<HOLDING>); Mitchell v. Exxon Corp., 907 F.Supp. 198
holding that a worker who was injured when his hand was caught in a plastic press and burned by molten polyvinyl chloride could not establish a cause of action against a nondiverse defendant under the intentional act exception to workers compensation exclusivity and therefore the nondiverse defendants coworkers were fraudulently joined holding that were the court to find fraudulent joinder as to a nondiverse defendant on the basis of evidence equally dispositive of the liability of that defendant and a nondiverse defendant a refusal later in the proceedings to give judgment for the diverse defendant on the same grounds in turn would require the court to revisit a ruling that the nondiverse defendant was fraudulently joined holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional holding that exclusivity provision of workers compensation act barred wifes loss of consortium claim holding employee who suffered damages as a result of fire and explosion that occurred on the job could not establish a cause of action against nondiverse coemployee defendants under the intentional act exceptions to the workers compensation exclusivity provision and therefore defendant coemployees were fraudulently joined