of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined. Simons v. Hitachi Am., Ltd., No. 06-11895, 2007 WL 1306558, at *3 (D.Mass. May 3, 2007). In deciding whether there is a “reasonable basis in law and fact” for the claim, the Court must resolve “all disputed questions of fact and any ambiguities in the current controlling substantive law in plaintiffs’ favor”. Badon v. RJR Nabisco Inc., 236 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir.2000). In considering whether a party has been fraudulently joined, a court is not held captive by the allegations in the complaint. Mills, 178 F.Supp.2d at 5. A court may consider additional evidence beyond the claims made in the pleadings, including affidavits of the parties. Id. at 6 (citing Badon, 236 F.3d at 285 n. 3 (<HOLDING>)). 2. Application This case was removed to
holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that no recovery exists for speculative damages holding that before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law holding that a court may consider undisputed summary judgment type evidence when determining whether a reasonable possibility of recovery under state law exists holding that a court may not consider hearsay contained in an affidavit when ruling on a summary judgment motion