Removal Class Action Defense Cases- Levitanksy v. FIA: Ohio Federal Court Holds That Putative Class Action Stated Breach Of Contract Claim Warranting Remand Of Class Action Complaint To State Court

Class Action Complaint Alleging Fees Charged were in Excess of Contractually Agreed Amount did not Constitute Challenge to Interest Rate and so National Bank Act did not Completely Preempt Claims in Putative Class Action Ohio Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Ohio state court against credit card company FIA Card Services alleging that it collected cash advance fees in excess of the maximum allowed under its cash advance agreements. Levitanksy v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 492 F.Supp.2d 758, 760 (N.D. Ohio 2007). Defense attorneys removed the action to federal court on the basis of National Bank Act, alleging that the class action complaint challenged the interest rate charged to customers and that usury claims are completely preempted under the NBA, id., at 760-61; plaintiff filed a motion to remand the class action to state court on the ground that the class action alleged only state-law breach of contract claims, id., at 759. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that the National Bank Act did not completely preempt the claims set forth in the class action complaint.

Plaintiff’s class action seeks to represent all individuals who entered into cash advance agreements with FIA, setting forth as common class allegations that FIA “extended one or more promotional offers for balance transfers and cash advance checks where the transaction fees would be limited to 3% of each advance” and that the FIA contracts “stipulated that the maximum allowable transaction fee was $75,” but that FIA charged cash advance fees in excess of that agreed amount. Levitansky, at 760. Defense attorneys removed the class action complaint to federal court under the National Bank Act; plaintiff filed a motion to remand the class action on the ground that the complaint set forth a state-law breach of contract claim. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Watson v. Philip Morris-Class Action Defense Issues: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Tobacco Company Argument That Heavily Regulated Industry Falls Within Scope of Federal Officer Removal Statute

In Decision with Significant Impact on Defense of Class Action Lawsuits, U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Private Party cannot Remove Lawsuit to Federal Court under Federal Officer Removal Statute Merely because it Complies with Federal Laws

Plaintiffs filed a suit in Arkansas state court against Philip Morris alleging violations of the state’s unfair and deceptive business practices statutes arising out of its marketing of “light” cigarettes, which plaintiffs argued suggested that they were “safer” – i.e., lower in tar and nicotine – than regular cigarettes. Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 2301 [Slip Opn., at 1-2] (2007). Defense attorneys removed the action to federal court on the basis of the federal officer removal statute, which the district court agreed authorized removal, id., at 2. The Supreme Court explained that the district court reasoned the lawsuit “attacked Philip Morris’ use of the Government’s method of testing cigarettes” and that plaintiffs “had sued Philip Morris for ‘act[s]’ taken ‘under’ the Federal Trade Commission, a federal agency (staffed by federal ‘officer[s]’).” Id. The district court certified the question for interlocutory review, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed “emphasiz[ing] the FTC’s detailed supervision of the cigarette testing process” and relying upon cases authorizing removal “by heavily supervised Government contractors.” Id., at 2-3. The Eighth Circuit held that Philip Morris was “acting under” the FTC with respect to its marketing of “light” cigarettes, thus authorizing removal. Id., at 3. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

The federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), permits removal of suits brought against the “United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office” (italics added). The Supreme Court recognized that the phrase “acting under” are “broad” and that “the statute must be ‘liberally construed,’” but added that “broad language is not limitless.” Watson, at 3 (citations omitted). The High Court’s analysis of the legislative history led it to conclude that the Congressional intent was to cover persons “aiding or assisting” federal officers in the performance of their duties, or acting directly “under or by authority of any such officer.” Id., at 3-7. So viewed, the Supreme Court held that the words “acting under” in the federal officer removal statute must be a reference to “a relationship that involves ‘acting in a certain capacity, considered in relation to one holding a superior position or office.’” Id., at 7. “In our view, the help or assistance necessary to bring a private person within the scope of the statute does not include simply complying with the law.” Id., at 8 (italics in original).

Class Action Court Decisions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Atteberry v. Esurance: Illinois Federal Court Remands Class Action To State Court Finding Defense Failed To Establish Requisite Amount In Controversy

Defense Claims of $75,000 Controversy for Diversity Jurisdiction and $5 Million Controversy for Removal Jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) were Speculative Warranting Remand of Class Action to State Court Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Esurance Insurance in Illinois state court alleging bad faith in the processing of insurance claims. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court arguing diversity jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Tobacco Class Action Defense Cases-Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds: Eighth Circuit Reverses Denial Of Motion To Remand Class Action To State Court

Class Action Remanded to State Court because Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in a Different Case does not Constitute “an Amended Pleading, Motion, Order or Other Paper” Within the Meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(b) Eighth Circuit Holds

In 2003, plaintiffs filed a class action in Minnesota state court against R.J. Reynolds & Touche for fraud and violations of state consumer protection laws alleging that the company engaged in “unfair business practices and/or deceptive and unlawful conduct in connection with the manufacture, distribution, promotion, marketing, and sale” of “light” cigarettes. Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965, 966 (8th Cir. 2007). Defense attorneys removed the class action complaint to federal court but the district court remanded the class action to state court because the claims of the individual plaintiffs were less than $75,000; the state court then dismissed the class action complaint on the ground that the claims therein were preempted by federal law under the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, 15 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. During the pendency of the state court appeal, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion that held another tobacco company had established federal officer jurisdiction in a case involving the marketing of light cigarettes, id. (citing Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 420 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1055 (January 12, 2007); defense attorneys again removed the class action to federal court, arguing federal officer jurisdiction, _id._ Plaintiffs’ lawyer moved to remand the class action complaint to state court, arguing that the notice of removal was untimely, but the district court denied the motion. _Id._ The Circuit Court reversed.

Briefly, the class action complaint was filed in 2003 and timely removed to federal court; following remand, the trial court dismissed the class action and plaintiffs appealed. Dahl, at 966. On August 25, 2005, while the appeal from the dismissal of the class action complaint was pending, the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion in Watson holding that Philip Morris had established federal officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), and on September 22, 2005, defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under § 1442(a). Id., at 967. Plaintiffs argued that the removal was untimely as it was not brought within the 30-day limit set forth in § 1442(b); the district court denied the motion, agreeing with the defense that “Watson made it clear for the first time that federal courts have jurisdiction over claims like those in this case and its receipt of that opinion recommenced the thirty day time period for removal.” Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

CAFA/Hurricane Katrina Class Action Defense Case-Caruso v. Allstate: Removal Of Class Action Proper Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) And Plaintiffs Failed To Establish Local Controversy Exception To Removal

Louisiana Federal Court Holds that Local Controversy Exception to Class Action Removal Under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) was not Established Because Two Defendants had been Named in Class Actions Alleging Similar Claims Within the Three Years Preceding the Filing of the Instant Class Action Complaint

Six property owners filed a single class action complaint in Louisiana state court against six insurers alleging violations of the state’s Valued Policy Law, breach of contract and bad faith; Allstate’s defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court asserting jurisdiction under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005). Caruso v. Allstate Ins. Co., 469 F.Supp.2d 364, 365-66 (E.D. La. 2007). Plaintiffs moved to remand the class action to state court based on CAFA’s “local controversy” exception to removal, id., at 366. The district court denied the motion, agreeing with defense arguments that plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving the applicability of that exception.

The class action plaintiffs alleged that Hurricane Katrina caused substantial damage to their homes and they sued their homeowner’s insurance carriers to recover policy benefits. Caruso, at 365. Each plaintiff was insured by a different insurer, so the class action complaint named as defendants Allstate Insurance Company, State Farm Insurance Company, Republic Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Auto Club Family Insurance Company, Lafayette Insurance Company and Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Id. Allstate timely removed the lawsuit to federal court under CAFA, and plaintiffs’ sought remand alleging that the “local controversy” exception applied. Id., at 366. The district court found that “the proposed class action undoubtedly satisfies the CAFA’s criteria for removal,” id.; the relevant inquiry was whether the local controversy exception applied.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Progressive West v. Preciado: Class Action Fairness Act Of 2005 (CAFA) Does Not Permit Cross-Defendant To Remove Class Action Cross-Complaint Ninth Circuit Holds

Ninth Circuit Holds that Amendment of Class Action Cross-Complaint did not “Commence” New Action for Purposes of Removal under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005), and that CAFA would not Avail a Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Because CAFA Permits only a “Defendant” to Remove a Class Action to Federal Court

In December 2004, Progressive West Insurance Company filed a breach of contract lawsuit against its insured in California state court; on February 17, 2005 – the day before the effective date of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) – the insured filed a cross-complaint alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and seeking to prosecute the cross-complaint as a class action. Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Preciado, 479 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. March 6, 2007) [Slip Opn., 2]. The initial class action allegations were deficient, and in August 2006 the trial court granted plaintiff leave to amend the cross-complaint to assert the necessary allegations for a class action. Id. Progressive responded by removing the class action to federal court on the basis of CAFA, id.; the federal court remanded the class action to state court and the Ninth Circuit granted Progressive’s request for leave to appeal, id., at 3. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court order, holding that CAFA did not confer federal court jurisdiction over the putative class action.

Urging the Ninth Circuit to follow the Seventh Circuit opinion in Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 411 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005), Progressive argued that CAFA governed the class action complaint because under California’s “relation back” doctrine the “amended cross-complaint commenced a new action because it substantially changed the nature of the action from an individual action to a representative [class] action.” Slip Opn., at 4-5. The Ninth Circuit declined the invitation. The appellate court reaffirmed that a class action is “commenced” for purposes of removal under CAFA “when a suit becomes ‘a cognizable legal action in state court’ under ‘[a] state’s own laws and rules of procedure.’” Id., at 4 (citation omitted). California law deems an action “commenced” as of the date the complaint, or cross-complaint, is filed with the court, id. (citations omitted). Under California law, then, the class action complaint against Progressive “commenced” for purposes of CAFA on February 15, 2005 – the date the initial cross-complaint was filed. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-McAtee v. Capital One: Ninth Circuit Holds That Naming Doe Defendant Does Not Commence New Action For Purposes Of Class Action Fairness Act Of 2005 (CAFA)

Under California Law, Class Action is not “Commenced” under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) by Amending Complaint to Name Doe Defendant Ninth Circuit Holds

In August 2004, plaintiff Ball filed a class action in California state court against various Capital One entities alleging that certain provisions of defendants’ credit card contracts constituted unlawful business practices. McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. March 16, 2007) [Slip Opn., 2-3]. Three months later, California voters passed Proposition 64 which necessitated that a plaintiff must have suffered actual injury in order to have standing to bring a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and this new requirement applied to cases pending at the time of its passage. _Id._, at 3. In May 2005, the trial court precluded Ball from pursuing her claims against the named Capital One defendants; an amended complaint was filed naming McAtee as the new party-plaintiff. _Id._ Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which became effective February 18, 2005, arguing that the substitution of plaintiffs constituted the commencement of a “new action” within the meaning of CAFA, _id._, at 3-4. The federal court remanded the action, holding that the class action had been commenced in August 2004 when Ball filed the original class action complaint, _id._, at 4. Following remand, McAtee amended the complaint to add Capital One Bank as a party-defendant and dismissing the original Capital One entities as defendants; defense attorneys again removed the class action to federal court under CAFA, and the federal court again granted plaintiff’s motion for remand. _Id._ The Ninth Circuit granted defendant’s petition for appeal and affirmed the remand order.

As a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals addressed “whether substitution of a named defendant for a Doe defendant in a California state court action commences a civil action against the new named defendant within the meaning of CAFA.” Slip Opn., at 4-5. The question of when an action is “commenced” for purposes of removal under CAFA turns on state law, id., at 7-8. In this regard, the Ninth Circuit rejected the approach taken by some other federal courts that relies, at least in part, on state-law relation back doctrine. Id., at 8-9. The appellate court explained that “[w]hen the ultimate question before the court is whether to dismiss an action for lack of timeliness, it makes sense to apply the relationship back doctrine, for in such cases the very survival of the action is at issue.” Id., at 9. But the consequences are far less severe when the issue is commencement for purposes of jurisdiction only: “The case will be allowed to go forward, in some forum, whether CAFA applies or not. If CAFA applies, the action may go forward in federal court if a defendant files a timely motion for removal. If CAFA does not apply, the action must go forward in state court unless there is some other basis for removal to federal court.” Id., at 10. For this reason, the relation back doctrine simply does not apply to a determination of whether a class action filed in state court may be removed under CAFA: the Ninth Circuit “simply look[s] to the date on which the original complaint in the action was filed.” Id., at 11.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

State Farm Katrina Class Action Defense Case-Roby v. State Farm: Louisiana Federal Court Grants Motion To Remand Class Action To State Court Holding Hurricane Is Not An Accident Under Federal MMTJA

A Hurricane is not an “Accident” under the Federal Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act (MMTJA) and Defense Failed to Prove that Individual was Fraudulently Joined for Purposes of Defeating Diversity Jurisdiction over Class Action Louisiana Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Louisiana state court against their homeowners insurance carrier, State Farm, alleging that it wrongfully denied insurance benefits for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Roby v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 464 F.Supp.2d 572, 574 (E.D. La. 2006). Specifically, after plaintiffs provided State Farm evidence that Hurricane Katrina caused them to suffer more than $400,000 in damages, State Farm tendered a $23,000 check to plaintiffs representing its “estimated damages for their claim for damages to their home” and ultimately refused to pay plaintiffs’ claim in full or to pay policy limits because it concluded that “[plaintiffs’] home sustained flood damage from Hurricane Katrina and that flood damages are excluded from the policy.” Id. State Farm also denied personal contents benefits on the ground that flood damage excluded coverage, id., at 574 n.5. Plaintiffs countered that their home had sustained damage caused by rain that entered through holes in the roof caused by the hurricane, and filed a class action complaint for a declaratory judgment that the exclusion relied upon by State Farm did not apply and, alternatively, that their State Farm agent should have informed them to obtain flood insurance. Id., at 574-75. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, asserting both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Id., at 575 and n.6. As to diversity, defense attorneys argued that plaintiffs had named the State Farm agent solely to defeat diversity. Id. Plaintiffs filed a motion for remand. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion and remanded the class action to state court.

After noting that State Farm bore the burden of proof as the party invoking federal court jurisdiction, Roby, at 575, the district court addressed State Farm’s argument that federal jurisdiction exists under the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act (MMTJA) – “specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1369 . . . and its corresponding removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(e),” id. As the district court explained at pages 575 and 576, “Section 1369 is a federal statute that establishes subject matter jurisdiction in federal court over a single accident in which at least 75 persons died. Section 1441 allows a defendant to remove a § 1369 case to federal court. Congress enacted the MMTJA to allow full consolidation of state and federal cases related to a common disaster in order to eliminate multiple or inconsistent awards arising from multiforum litigation.” (Footnote and citations omitted.) The district court held that MMTJA did not apply because a hurricane is not an “accident” within the meaning of the Act, id., at 576.

Class Action Court Decisions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Buller Trucking Class Action Defense Case: Illinois Federal Court Remands Class Action To State Court Holding Lawsuit Not Removable Under Class Action Fairness Act Of 2005 (CAFA)

State Law Governed the Effective Date of the Filing of an Amended Complaint for Purposes of CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) Illinois Federal Court Holds

In January 2004, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against its cargo loss insurer for breach of contract, delay in paying insurance claim and fraud. On February 7, 2005, plaintiff requested leave of court to file an amended complaint to allege class action allegations and to represent three nationwide classes against the insurer; the motion was granted on February 18 – the same date that CAFA(Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) became effective. Buller Trucking Co. v. Owner Operator Independent Driver Risk Retention Group, Inc., 461 F.Supp.2d 768, 770-71 (S.D. Ill. 2006). On March 7, 2005, defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court. The district court remanded the class action to state court and defense attorneys petitioned the Seventh Circuit for leave to appeal. Id., at 771. The Circuit Court vacated the district court’s remand order and instructed the lower court to consider whether the filing of the amended complaint after CAFA became effective rendered the class action removable under CAFA. Id. The district court concluded that the effective date of the amended complaint pre-dated CAFA thus compelling remand to state court.

After summarizing CAFA and observing that CAFA does not apply retroactively to cases filed before its effective date, Buller Trucking, at 772, the district court explained that whether an amended complaint “recommences” a class action under state law for purposes of CAFA generally turns on “whether the amendment ‘relates back’ to the filing date of the original complaint: if it does, then the case is not removable, but if it does not, the case is subject to removal under CAFA.” Id. (quoting Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 411 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2005)). In the Seventh Circuit, “a new claim for relief (a new ’cause of action’ in state practice), the addition of a new defendant, or any other step sufficiently distinct that courts would treat it as independent for limitations purposes, could well commence a new piece of litigation for federal purposes even if it bears an old docket number for state purposes.” Id. (quoting Knudsen, 411 F.3d at 807).

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Coca Cola Class Action Defense Case-Oshana v. Coca Cola: Federal Court Jurisdiction Exists And District Court Properly Granted Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Under Cable Communications Policy Act Because Act Does Not Apply To Internet Services

Seventh Circuit Holds that Certification of Class Action Properly Denied Because Putative Class Included Members who Suffered no Damage and Because Plaintiff’s Claims were not Typical of the Class

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Coca Cola in Illinois state court for violating the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and for unjust enrichment on the theory that “Coke tricked consumers into believing that fountain Diet Coke and bottled Diet Coke have the same ingredients” when in fact the company used different sweeteners in the drinks. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 509 (7th Cir. 2006). According to plaintiff, Coke used only aspartame in the bottled drinks, but combined aspartame with saccharin in its fountain drinks. Id. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court and defeated plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The defense then tendered a judgment of $650 to plaintiff, which plaintiff accepted with the provisos that she be permitted to challenge on appeal whether the action had been proper removed and whether her motion to certify a class action had been properly denied. Id. The Seventh Circuit affirmed both rulings of the district court.

Plaintiff purported to bring this action on behalf of “.All individuals who purchased for consumption and not resale fountain Diet Coke in . . . Illinois from March 12, 1999, through the date of entry of an order certifying the class.” Oshana, at 510. Her class action complaint hinged on the allegation that “Coke began advertising in 1984 that Diet Coke would be sweetened with 100% NutraSweet® brand aspartame, leading consumers to believe that all forms of Diet Coke would follow that formula, even though fountain Diet Coke continued to use saccharin.” Id., at 509. While plaintiff disclaimed any right to individual damages in excess of $75,000, she steadfastly refused defense requests that she “admit she would not individually seek an award of attorneys’ fees over $75,000; punitive damages over $75,000; a combined award of compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees over $75,000; or a combined award of disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages over $75,000.” Id. Accordingly, Coca Cola removed the putative class action to federal court asserting a good faith belief that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000; the district court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court concluding that plaintiff’s damages could exceed $75,000, particularly in light of her refusal to “admit otherwise.” Id., at 509-10.

Class Action Court Decisions Removal & Remand Uncategorized