their burden here. They make interesting—and perhaps even potentially successful arguments—about IFS’s lack of liability in this matter. Among other things, they argue the statute of limitations has run on the Warners’ claims and that the Warners haven’t stated sufficient factual allegations against IFS. But these arguments don’t satisfy the high standards SPS and U.S. Bank acknowledge in their own response to OSC 2. Even though there might be no successful claim against IFS, that doesn’t mean that “no viable cause of action has been stated” and that “there is no factual basis for the claims” against IFS. See Onelum v. Best Buy Stores L.P., 948 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1051 (C.D.Cal.2013) (emphases added); see also Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 776 F.3d 214, 218 (4th Cir.2015) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). Attorneys pleading cases often seek to
holding that diversity jurisdiction was not established by a statecourt order that provided only that the plaintiffs claims against a nondiverse defendant be and hereby are severed from this action holding that a statecourt order providing for severance and separate trials of claims against a diverse defendant and a nondiverse defendant did not permit removal of a plaintiffs claim against the diverse defendant where the claims had not been separately docketed in state court and the plaintiffs claim against the nondiverse defendant had been removed together with the claim against the diverse defendant holding that plaintiffs had not fraudulently joined nondiverse defendants where the plaintiffs claims were based on respondeat superior if no cause of action can be stated against the nondiverse defendants for their alleged torts no case exists against defendant new england for example if a statute of limitation has run on a claim against a nondiverse defendant it necessarily has run for new england accordingly the arguments offered by new england to prove fraudulent joinder simultaneously show that no case can be made against the diverse defendant 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 a nondiverse defendant can be disregarded in the jurisdictional analysis when there is no factual detail at all to support any claims against him