Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 90
includes a bar to removal of state court class actions alleging only Securities Act
violations. Since the court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the
case must be remanded to state court, it also denied the defendants’ motion to transfer
venue. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand and denied
the defendants’ motion to transfer venue.
D.
Fourth Circuit
In Taylor, et al. v. Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172179
(M.D.N.C. Sep. 23, 2022), the plaintiff filed a 19-count class action complaint asserting
claims under common lawn and statutory claims under North Carolina, Florida, and
California state law in regard to alleged defects in fire extinguishers manufactured by
the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss on the basis that the court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction over certain claims. The court denied the defendant’s motion
to dismiss. In relevant part, the plaintiffs alleged that the court had subject-matter
jurisdiction over their Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claim pursuant to the
CAFA. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs could not avail themselves of the CAFA
because that law did not repeal - implicitly or otherwise - the MMWA’s requirements.
After noting that courts were split on the issue, the court observed that at least one
Fourth Circuit case law authority (in Chavis, et al. v. Fidelity Warranty Services, Inc.,
415 F. Supp. 2d 620, 626 (D.S.C. 2006)) found that the CAFA implicitly overrode the
MMWA’s stricter requirements. Id. at *39-40. In lieu of such authority, the court declined
to foreclose the CAFA as an avenue for the plaintiffs to avoid the MMWA's numerosity
requirement. Id. at *40. Additionally, the court opined that the plaintiffs alleged sufficient
facts to show that they met the CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement. Id. at *4041. Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiffs’ failure to meet the MMWA’s
requirements did not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction because they met
the CAFA's requirements, which provided an alternate jurisdictional basis. Id. at *41.
E.
Fifth Circuit
In Stewart, et al. v. Entergy Corp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39497 (E.D. La. Mar. 7, 2022),
the plaintiffs filed a class action in Louisiana state court against the defendants claiming
damages due to power outages after Hurricane Ida. Id. at *2. The plaintiffs asserted that
they are all citizens of Louisiana, as were all three defendants. Id. at *3. The defendants
removed the case on October 6, 2021, asserting in part that the court had subjectmatter jurisdiction under the CAFA. The plaintiffs moved to remand to state court. The
court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The plaintiffs argued that removal under
the CAFA was improper because exceptions to the CAFA applied. First, the plaintiffs
argued that the CAFA’s local controversy exception applied because more than twothirds of the proposed class members are Louisiana citizens, at least one of the
defendants was a Louisiana citizen, and the principal injuries allegedly occurred in
Louisiana. Id. at *16. Second, the plaintiffs argued that the CAFA’s home state
exception applied because two-thirds of the proposed class members and the primary
defendants are Louisiana citizens. The defendants argued that neither exception in the
CAFA applied and that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove these exceptions
with reasonable certainty. The court found that both of the CAFA exceptions applied
89
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
