Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 92
G.
Seventh Circuit
In Pecho, et al. v. Maui Jim, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178820 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 29,
2022), the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendants for an alleged
violation of the of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
(BIPA), claiming that the defendants unlawfully collected his facial geometry when he
used virtual try-on software to superimpose eyewear on his face on Maui Jim’s website.
The defendants removed the case and the plaintiff moved to remand. Id. at *1. The
court struck the plaintiff’s motion to remand without prejudice and granted the plaintiff’s
request in the alternative for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The plaintiff
moved to remand under an exception to the CAFA that obligates the court to decline to
exercise jurisdiction over local controversies. The court held that because the plaintiff
offered no evidence beyond his own citizenship, the plaintiff could not meet his burden
to show that two-thirds of the putative class are citizens of Illinois. However, the court
exercised its discretion to order jurisdictional discovery, noting that the parties do not
need to determine the citizenship of every putative class member individually to present
evidence on this question. Id. at *10-11. Accordingly, the court struck the plaintiff’s
motion to remand without prejudice and granted the plaintiff’s request in the alternative
for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Id. at *11.
H.
Eighth Circuit
In Fochtman, et al. v. Hendren Plastics, Inc., 47 F.4th 638 (8th Cir. 2022), the plaintiffs,
who were participants in a court-ordered drug and alcohol recovery program, filed class
action lawsuits alleging that the defendants failed to pay class members the minimum
wage required by the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). After the parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the class members
were employees covered by the AMWA, and resolved the motions in favor of the class.
Two of the defendants appealed on the grounds that while removal was originally
proper under the CAFA, the district court lost subject-matter jurisdiction when it severed
the claims against two of the other defendants, since the amount-in-controversy
requirement for federal jurisdiction under the CAFA was no longer met. The Eighth
Circuit rejected this contention. It noted that jurisdiction is determined at the time of
removal, even though subsequent events may remove from the case the facts on which
jurisdiction was predicated. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the district court
had subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit under the CAFA, but it reversed and
remanded the summary judgment ruling on unrelated grounds. Id. at 647.
I.
Ninth Circuit
In what is likely the most important ruling interpreting the CAFA in 2022, the Ninth
Circuit addressed the statute’s amount-in-controversy requirement in Jauregui, et al. v.
Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., 28 F.4th 989 (9th Cir. 2022). The plaintiff filed a
wage and hour class action on behalf of all current and former hourly workers of the
defendant. Although the defendant removed the case under the CAFA and presented
substantial evidence to establish the amount-in-controversy requirement, the district
court remanded the case. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that by
91
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
