In a complaint filed on March 23, 2016, in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, plaintiff, Marques Johnson, is seeking unspecified damages from TMZ and several other media companies for falsely reporting that he mutilated himself and attempted to commit suicide (see Johnson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00185 (D. Del. filed March 23, 2016)). Plaintiff is a hip hop artist who was formerly a member of the Killa Beez, which consists of several sub-groups of Wu Tang Clan associated acts. According to the complaint, plaintiff filed the action in federal court because the parties are diverse and the amount in controvery exceeds $75,000.

In April 2014, another musician named Andre Johnson, known by his stage name Christ Bearer, apparently committed an act of self-mutilation and jumped out of a window while at a party in California, in an unsuccessful attempt to end his life. According to the complaint, TMZ first reported the story on its website and incorrectly attributed Andre Johnson's actions to the plaintiff, Marques Johnson, accompanied by plaintiff's picture. The complaint details that several media outlets picked up the story from TMZ and likewise attributed the actions to plaintiff.

Plaintiff was in prison when the story broke and alleges that, due to the story, he had to be placed in protective custody (in isolation 23 hours a day) because other inmates threatened and harassed him. Plaintiff also alleges that he has been unable to resume his music career since leaving prison because he is still associated with the act of self-mutilation.

In Flagg v. Stryker Corp., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the appellate panel's sua sponte determination that the district court incorrectly exercised diversity jurisdiction (see ( (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2016)). Plaintiff filed suit in state court against both the manufacturers of a toe implant and the medical providers who implanted the device. The manufacturers were citizens of states other than Louisiana, where plaintiff is a citizen. The medical providers were all residents of Louisiana.

The manufacturers removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiff's claims against the medical providers were precluded because plaintiff had not exhausted his claims with the medical review panel as required under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (La. R.S. 40:1231.8(B)(1)(a)(i)). Plaintiff did not dispute that he failed to exhaust his claims against the medical providers. The district court agreed that the medical providers were improperly joined and exercised diversity jurisdiction over the manufacturers. The district court then dismissed the claims against the manufacturers with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6).

Even though not raised on appeal, the majority of the appellate panel concluded that the manufacturers had not demonstrated that there was "no reasonable basis" on which the medical providers could be held liable. The panel relied in part on the manufacturers indirectly pointing the finger at the medical providers in their arguments. The panel also observed that it would be inefficient to find that the medical providers were improperly joined because it would lead to duplicative litigation and potentially inconsistent outcomes.

In a 12-3 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the panel and held that the medical providers were improperly joined because at the time of removal, plaintiff did not have a valid cause of action since he did not comply with Louisiana law. The court found that had the case not been removed, the state court would have been obligated to dismiss the claims against the medical providers. The court remanded the case back to the panel for consideration of plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of the action under FRCP 12(b)(6).

Practical Law has several resources to assist counsel with filing an action in federal court, removing a case to federal court because diversity jurisdiction exists, and remanding a case to state court due to the lack of diversity of the parties: