Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—E.D.N.Y.: Consumer denied remand in burn injury case against heater suppliers, (Mar 18, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The removing supplier established by “clear and convincing evidence” that the only non-diverse retailer was fraudulently joined, making the removal proper.

In an action brought against several heater suppliers by a man who allegedly suffered severe burns from a malfunctioning portable heater, a federal district court in New York denied the consumer’s motion to remand. The in-state retailer’s affidavits established that it did not play any role in manufacturing, selling, or distributing the heater at issue. The court held that there was no possibility of the consumer stating a valid claim against the retailer, that the supplier timely removed the case within the one-year deadline for diversity-based removal, and that the consent of the fraudulently joined retailer was not required for removal under the unanimity rule exception (Hill v. P.C. Richard & Son LLC, No. 25-cv-4670 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2026)).

Background. A man claimed that he was using a portable “Bionic Heater” in October 2021 when the device malfunctioned and caused severe injuries, including third-degree burns to his leg that ultimately resulted in amputations. He commenced an action in New York state court in August 2024 against the entities allegedly involved in the heater’s design, manufacture, marketing, warranting, and sale; namely, P.C. Richard & Son LLC (P.C. Richard or retailer), Newell Brands Inc. (supplier), and Sunbeam Products Inc. The complaint asserted claims for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty. Newell removed the case to federal court in August 2025 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the retailer—like the consumer—was a New York citizen but had been fraudulently joined solely to defeat diversity. The consumer moved to remand, arguing that the retailer was properly named, the removal was untimely, and the removal was procedurally defective because the retailer did not consent.

Legal standard. The doctrine of fraudulent joinder permits courts to overlook the presence of non-diverse parties if a plaintiff fraudulently joined them in an effort to defeat federal jurisdiction. Bounds v. Pine Belt Mental Health Care Res., 593 F.3d 209, 215 (2d Cir. 2010). The removing party must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence either “outright fraud” in the plaintiff’s pleadings or “that there is no possibility the plaintiff can state a claim against that party in state court.” Pampillonia v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 138 F.3d 459, 461 (2d Cir. 1998).

Fraudulent joinder. P.C. Richard’s buyer for heaters confirmed that a records search showed that P.C. Richard never sold the Bionic Heater. The retailer’s Chief Information Officer also attested that as per a database search, the heater was never in their inventory. As per Elrod v. Bayer Corp., No. 19-CV-6048, 2020 WL 4284416, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2020), the court could “pierce the pleadings” and consider extrinsic evidence such as affidavits and deposition testimony to determine whether a defendant entity was fraudulently joined. Newell relied on these affidavits to argue that the retailer had no connection to this case. The consumer responded that there was a reasonable basis to name the retailer at the time of filing but failed to identify any supporting evidence. Although he had previously stated in interrogatory responses that he purchased the heater from the retailer, he did not rebut the affidavits or provide documentation supporting that assertion. The court found that the affidavits constituted clear and convincing evidence that the retailer had no connection to the heater at issue.

Claim validity. The court next examined whether any viable claims could exist against the retailer. Under New York law, a negligence claim requires proof of duty, breach, and causation. Coyle v. United States, 954 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2020). A party that neither manufactured, sold, nor distributed a product owes no duty to a consumer injured by that product. Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 393, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Accordingly, P.C. Richard could not be held liable for negligence where it had no involvement with the product at issue. The same reasoning applied to the strict liability and implied warranty claims. Because the consumer could not establish any claim against the retailer under New York law, the court concluded that the retailer was fraudulently joined and that its citizenship could be disregarded for jurisdictional purposes.

Timeliness. The consumer argued that removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), which requires removal within 30 days of receiving a paper from which removability can be ascertained. He contended that the affidavits constituted such “other paper” and triggered the removal clock earlier. The court rejected that argument. Under Cutrone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 749 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2014), the 30-day clock is triggered only when the plaintiff provides information establishing removability. Here, the affidavits were not provided by the consumer but were generated by the retailer in support of its own motion practice. Accordingly, they did not trigger the 30-day removal period. Instead, the applicable limit was the one-year deadline for diversity-based removal under § 1446(c)(1). The consumer served Newell on August 22, 2024, the retailer moved to dismiss the state court action based on the two affidavits on August 7, 2025, and the supplier removed the case on August 22, 2025. Accordingly, the case was timely removed within one year of its commencement.

Unanimity. Finally, the man contended that removal was defective because the retailer did not consent, in violation of the rule of unanimity under § 1446(b)(2)(A). However, courts recognize an exception to the unanimity requirement where a defendant has been fraudulently joined. Sherman v. A.J. Pegno Constr. Corp., 528 F. Supp. 2d 320, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Newell properly obtained the consent of Sunbeam, the other properly joined defendant entity, prior to filing its notice of removal. Because the retailer was fraudulently joined, its consent was not required. Without the retailer, complete diversity existed between the remaining parties, and the removal was both timely and procedurally proper. The man’s motion was accordingly denied and this court retained jurisdiction over the action.

The case is No. 25-CV-4670.

Judge: Brodie, M.

Attorneys: David R. Shoop (Shoop, A Professional Law Corp.) for Raymond Hill. Jeffrey M. Burkhoff (Chesney, Nicholas & Brower, LLP) for P.C. Richard & Son LLC. Zachary Daniel Oliva (Goldberg Segalla) for Newell Brands Inc.

Companies: P.C. Richard & Son LLC; Newell Brands Inc.; Sunbeam Products Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions JurisdictionNews HouseholdProductsNews NewYorkNews