in dismissing all claims against King. For the foregoing reasons, we: 1) AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the Holders’ motion to remand, 2) AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the Holders’ claims against Gregory S. Maranto, M.D. and Rush Medical Group, P.A., 3) AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the claims against the Vaccine Defendants, but 4) REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Eli Lilly and Company, Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., and Spectrum Chemical Manufacturing Corp. and REMAND only the claims that those defendants manufactured, marketed, designed or distributed Thimerosal. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART 1 . 42 U L.Ed.2d 755 (2005). 6 . Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 311 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella & Co., Inc.,
holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo holding that an order denying remand based on improper joinder is reviewed de novo holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo holding that rule 12b6 disposition is reviewed de novo