Isakson et al v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
LOYE and DEBORAH ISAKSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SCHAEFFLER GROUP USA INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:25-cv-05090-MDH
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand. (Doc. 23). Plaintiffs move the Court for
an Order remanding this case to the Circuit Court for Jasper County, Missouri. Defendants
Schaeffler Group USA Inc., FAG Bearings, LLC, FAG Bearings Corporation, FAG Bearing
Corporation, FAG Holding Corporation, and Norma FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively,
“FAG”) removed this action on the ground that Defendants Burns & McDonnell Engineering
Company, Inc. and Burns & McDonnell Waste Consultants, Inc. (collectively, “Burns &
McDonnell”) were fraudulently joined. The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review.
BACKGROUND
This case was originally filed in Jasper County, Missouri against defendants Burns &
McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. and Burns & McDonnell Waste Consultants, Inc.
(collectively “Burns & McDonnell”), as well as Schaeffler Group USA Inc., FAG Bearings, LLC,
FAG Bearings Corporation, FAG Bearing Corporation, FAG Holding Corporation, and Norma
FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively “FAG”). Plaintiffs’ claims are based on personal injuries
they allege to have sustained as a result of exposure to trichloroethylene (“TCE”) that contaminated
Case 3:25-cv-05090-MDH Document 33 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 6

2
the Villages of Silver Creek and Saginaw. Plaintiffs allege their injuries were caused by the conduct
of Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ claims case arise from decades of TCE use and release at FAG’s Joplin ball-
bearings facility. Plaintiffs’ petition alleges FAG released TCE into the environment in a number
of ways including releasing between 12,000 and 25,000 gallons of TCE through spills, leaks,
overflowing tanks, and dumping of still-bottoms. By 1991, the Missouri Department of Health
(MDOH) had detected TCE in residential wells in Silver Creek.
FAG hired Burns & McDonnell to act as an environmental consultant and expert in
litigation related to its TCE contamination. Plaintiffs contend both entities knew that FAG was
responsible, but despite this knowledge publicly denied that FAG was responsible and disputed
the extent and nature of the contamination. Plaintiffs allege FAG and Burns & McDonnell claimed
the TCE had not migrated to the surrounding communities, when both parties knew that it had.
Plaintiffs further allege Burns & McDonnell designed and conducted its field work to
shield the true extent of the contamination, including but not limited to: it deliberately avoided
sampling locations of known releases on FAG’s property; it ignored or selectively used information
regarding FAG’s TCE use, the testimony of FAG’s employees regarding dumping activities, and
various findings of FAG’s prior consultants, the EPA, and the MDNR; and it concealed and
misrepresented test results.
Plaintiffs further contend Burns & McDonnell’s field work made the contamination worse
by improperly installing a monitoring well that allowed a large volume of contaminated water to
cascade into and pollute the deep aquifer and knowingly dumped contaminated water into the
ground and conducted pump tests without required permits.
Case 3:25-cv-05090-MDH Document 33 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Plaintiffs state their allegations come directly from the findings in Fag Bearings Corp. v.
Gulf States Paper Co., No. 95-5081-CV-SW-8, 1998 WL 919115 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 1998).
Plaintiffs also cite Burns & McDonnell. Knapp v. Schaeffler Grp. USA Inc., No. 3:21-CV-05035-
MDH, 2021 WL 2456861, at *3 (W.D. Mo. June 16, 2021) that recognized these allegations. (“This
Court has clearly recognized FAG Bearings', Overton's, and Burns & McDonnell's involvement at
the manufacturing site.”).
Plaintiffs allege as a result of Burns & McDonnell’s conduct, the TCE contamination was
worsened, the extent of the TCE contamination within the Villages was not fully defined, the public
was not adequately warned, and appropriate remediation efforts were not undertaken. Plaintiffs
have alleged that Burns & McDonnell’s affirmative actions and concealment caused, contributed
to cause, or further aggravated Plaintiffs’ injuries.
FAG removed this case claiming that Burns & McDonnell was fraudulently joined.
Plaintiffs move to remand arguing they have stated a valid cause of action against Burns &
McDonnell.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375 (1994). Such courts can only hear cases that they are authorized to hear by the
Constitution or a statute. Id. An action may be removed from state court to federal district court if
the case falls within the original jurisdiction of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 1446(b).
A removing defendant “bears the burden of establishing that the district court ha[s] original
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968,
975 (8th Cir. 2011). “All doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand
to state court.” Id., citing Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628 F.3d 439, 446 (8th Cir. 2010).
Case 3:25-cv-05090-MDH Document 33 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 6

4
“Fraudulent joinder occurs when a plaintiff files a frivolous or illegitimate claim against a
non-diverse defendant solely to prevent removal.” In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613,
620 (8th Cir. 2010)(emphasis added). To establish fraudulent joinder, the removing party must
“prove that the plaintiff’s claim against the diversity-destroying defendant has ‘no reasonable basis
in fact and law.’” Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968, 980 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Filla
v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 810 (8th Cir. 2003)). “The plaintiff’s motive is immaterial;
rather, courts focus on whether the petition states a legal and factual basis to recover against the
non-diverse defendant.” Schoonmaker v. Emerson Climate Techs., Inc., No. 6:16-CV-03017-MDH,
2016 WL 1573003, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 19, 2016).
“[If] there is a ‘colorable’ cause of action – that is, if the state law might impose liability
on the resident defendant under the facts alleged – then there is no fraudulent joinder.” Filla, 336
F.3d at 810. “‘Where the sufficiency of the complaint against the non-diverse defendant is
questionable, the better practice is for the federal court not to decide the doubtful question in
connection with a motion to remand but simply to remand the case and leave the question for the
state courts to decide.’” Schoonmaker, 2016 WL 1573003, at *2, citing Filla, 336 F.3d at 811. “All
doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Knudson,
634 F.3d at 975 (internal citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue under Filla v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2003), the only
question is whether Missouri law might impose liability on the in-state defendant and if so, remand
is required. Here, the question is not whether Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on their claims
against Burns & McDonnell, rather it is whether “there is even a possibility that a state court would
find that the complaint states a cause of action against any one of the resident defendants.” See
Case 3:25-cv-05090-MDH Document 33 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Moore v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2015 WL 4715968, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 7, 2015) (quoting Boyer v.
Snap–On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1085 (1991).
Plaintiffs state a Missouri state court has already held that a similar complaint states a cause of
action against Burns & McDonnell for similar allegations.
Here, Plaintiffs allege they were present, using groundwater, and exposed during the years
Burns & McDonnell performed environmental work, misrepresented migration data, and
contributed to further contamination. This is in contrast to the cases cited by Defendant. For
example, in Knapp v. Schaeffler Grp. USA Inc. (cited by the parties) the plaintiff had moved away
from the area before Burns & McDonnell had begun any of its work or had any involvement in the
area. See Knapp v. Schaeffler Grp. USA Inc., No. 3:21-CV-05035-MDH, 2021 WL 2456861 (W.D.
Mo. June 16, 2021).
In addition, the Court finds that FAG’s additional arguments, including that Plaintiffs
cannot establish causation, does not support a claim for fraudulent joinder. Defendants’ arguments
as to why Burns & McDonnell cannot be held liable are issues for the state court to ultimately
determine. At this review, the Court does not weigh whether causation may ultimately be
established, but rather whether Missouri law could impose liability on the claims presented. Here,
the Court finds Plaintiffs have stated a claim against Burns & McDonnell.
This same analysis applies to whether some of Plaintiffs’ claims may ultimately be barred
by the fraud statute of limitations, the statute of repose, or another affirmative defense. Again, the
Court makes no determination on whether Plaintiffs may ultimately prevail on their claims, but
does find they have stated a claim and that fraudulent joinder does not apply.
The Missouri state court decision in Taylor v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., No. 20AO-
CC00341 (Jasper Cty. Cir. Ct. June 11, 2021) provides further support that Plaintiffs have stated a
Case 3:25-cv-05090-MDH Document 33 Filed 04/07/26 Page 5 of 6

6
claim against Burns & McDonnell. In Taylor, the defendants’ similar arguments (other than
causation) were raised and rejected. The state court found the claims were sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss. The Court agrees that here where a Missouri state court considered the same
legal arguments and declined to dismiss the claims at the pleading stage, those claims are
considered legally viable under Missouri law.
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Remand. The Court ORDERS that this case shall be remanded to the Circuit Court of Jasper
County, Missouri.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: April 7, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-05090-MDH Document 33 Filed 04/07/26 Page 6 of 6