Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, REMOVAL JURISDICTION—PESTICIDES—S.D. Ill.: Paraquat exposure suit remanded despite remaining parties being diverse, (Jun 18, 2026)

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

The removal notice was untimely filed four years after the commencement of the suit, and the statutory “bad faith” exception did not apply to allow the delayed removal.

In a paraquat products liability action brought by a man who allegedly developed Parkinson’s disease following decades of paraquat exposure, a federal district court in Illinois granted the man’s motion to remand. The court found that the removing manufacturers failed to show that an in-state distributor was joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction and strategically dismissed three months before trial, because the record showed that the man genuinely pursued his claims against the distributor through extensive discovery, expert evidence, motion practice, and opposition to summary judgment (Smith v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., No. 3:25-pq-01221-NJR (S.D. Ill. June 10, 2026)).

Background. A man alleged that he used paraquat in connection with various jobs between 1974 and 1987 and was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 1997. In April 2021, he began suspecting paraquat as a potential cause of his condition. On June 21, 2021, he filed suit in Washington state court against Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chamberlin Distributing Company, Inc., Northwest Wholesale, Inc., and two other dismissed entities. The claimant, Chamberlin, and Northwest (distributor) were Washington citizens, while Syngenta and Chevron (together, manufacturers) were not. Chamberlin was dismissed, leaving Northwest as the sole in-state defendant. During the litigation, the man propounded multiple sets of interrogatories, requests for production and admission, expert discovery, and contention discovery on Northwest, deposed its corporate representative, and submitted a 27-page opposition to its summary judgment motion. In February 2025, Northwest moved to continue the trial date to allow its new attorney to catch up to speed. Fearing that this would delay the May 2025 trial, the man entered into an expedited settlement with the distributor. Syngenta and Chevron then removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The man sought remand, pointing out that the removal was untimely made nearly four years after the action commenced.

Removal standard. A defendant may remove a civil action where the federal court would have original jurisdiction, i.e., where the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as per 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Ordinarily, a defendant may remove a case within 30 days of service or receipt of an “initial pleading,” but this removal clock is reset when an amended pleading or other paper demonstrates removability. § 1446(b)(3). However, diversity cases may not be removed “more than 1 year after commencement of the action” unless the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.” § 1446(c)(1). District courts generally require a causal connection between the plaintiff’s conduct and the prevention of removal, McNeil v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., 2025 WL 939430 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2025), and consider fraudulent joinder principles, which focus on whether the plaintiff genuinely intended to pursue claims against the nondiverse defendant. McVey v. Anaplan, Inc., 2020 WL 5253853 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 2020).

Bad faith. The manufacturers argued that the claimant kept Northwest in the case solely as a diversity spoiler and settled with it only when its continued participation threatened to delay the scheduled May 2025 trial. They claimed that the paltry settlement demonstrated that the distributor was never a meaningful litigation target but merely a mechanism to prevent removal until the last possible moment. But bad faith in the removal context depends on whether the plaintiff is acting solely to secure the in-state defendant’s presence in the case, rather than to advance a claim against them. Here, the record showed several years of active litigation against Northwest. The man propounded extensive written discovery, pursued multiple adverse motions, deposed the distributor’s corporate representative, and vigorously opposed its summary judgment motion. These were not the actions of a litigant who lacked interest in pursuing viable claims against the in-state entity.

Further, a plaintiff is generally free to structure a lawsuit in a manner that preserves a preferred forum. Citing Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025), the court emphasized that a plaintiff remains the “master of the complaint” and may choose to sue in-state defendants even when doing so destroys diversity jurisdiction. The fact that the plaintiff benefited from Northwest’s presence in the case did not establish bad faith. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that he genuinely intended to litigate against Northwest and did so for years before reaching a settlement. Because the manufacturers failed to establish bad faith, the one-year removal bar applied and rendered the removal untimely. Accordingly, the court remanded the action to the Superior Court of Washington for King County.

The case is No. 3:25-pq-01221.

Judge: Rosenstengel, N.

Attorneys: Alexandra B. Caggiano (Weinstein Caggiano PLLC) and Khaldoun A. Baghdadi (Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger) for Dale Smith. Debra R. Belott (Jones Day) for Chevron U.S.A Inc. and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LP. Andrew S. DeCarlow (Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP) for Syngenta Crop. Protection LLC.

Companies: Chevron U.S.A Inc.; Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LP; Syngenta Crop. Protection LLC; Chamberlin Distributing Co. Inc. d/b/a Chamberlin Agriculture

Cases: CourtDecisions JurisdictionNews ChemicalNews IllinoisNews