above, we decline to follow the law of other Circuits that apply the presumption of collusion to cases such as the one before us, and evaluate the assignment from the Garita entities to Ambrosia under existing precedent. In Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, 394 U.S. 823, 89 S.Ct. 1487, 23 L.Ed.2d 9 (1969), the Supreme Court held that when the assignor retains an interest in the assigned claims, the assignee has no previous connection in the matter, and the assignment is made for the sole purpose of accessing the federal courts, the assignment is collusive in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1359. Id. at 827-28, 89 S.Ct. 1487. Likewise, we focus on the nature of the transfer, namely, whether the assignor has retained an interest in the assigned claim. See Gilbert v. Wills, 834 F.2d 935 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Harrell & Sumner Contracting Co., Inc. v.
holding that because there was complete diversity when the action commenced diversity jurisdiction was not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse plaintiff which was not indispensable holding that jurisdiction was collusively obtained when the plaintiff made a private side agreement that promised a portion of the litigation proceeds to potential plaintiffs so long as they did not intervene and destroy diversity between the parties holding res judicata did not bar current litigation when prior litigation between the parties involved one breach of obligation under a joint venture agreement and instant litigation was based upon a different cause of action from a subsequent interference with the same agreement holding diversity jurisdiction was collusively obtained because the transferor retained a onehalf interest in the outcome of the litigation and was an indispensable party but for the assignment holding that the fair and adequate representation requirement was not satisfied because of litigation between plaintiff and defendant the antagonism between the parties and the lack of support plaintiff garnered in its claim