II. Discussion A. Motion to Remand “The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.” ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). The Stilps argue that the district court erred in finding that the Law Firms had been fraudulently joined. If the Law Firms were not fraudulently joined, then removal was improper and the district court should have remanded the case to the state court because of a lack of complete diversity. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) (noting the requirement of complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants); see also Horton v. Conklin, 431 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). “[Jjoinder is fraudulent when there exists no
holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect holding that a rule 41b violation constituted a jurisdictional flaw inexcusable as a technical defect holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect