connection the Court notes that U.S. Bank already has moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against it on the grounds that they are time-barred under the ICFA’s three-year statute of limitations. See Doc. 8. Naturally, were the Court to find fraudulent joinder on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims against Pierce & Associates are time-barred, that ruling would require the Court to give judgment for U.S. Bank on the grounds of the statute of limitations as well. Moreover, if for some reason the Court were to hold that Plaintiffs’ claims against U.S. Bank are not time-barred, this would be tantamount to an admission that Plaintiffs’ claims against Pierce & Associates are not time-barred either, requiring immediate remand of this case to state court. See Hauck, 2006 WL 1596826, at *6 (<HOLDING>). The Court concludes that the allegation of
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 removal based on fraudulent joinder was not timely where it occurred more than thirty days after the removing defendants learned of facts showing that a nondiverse codefendant was fraudulently joined 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 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 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