Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 94
Circuit has expressly held that the CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement can be
satisfied only by claims that also comply with the requirements of Article III. The court
found that the only claims for which the plaintiff had standing were for uncompensated
time and expenses associated with providing her fingerprints and for rest breaks she
was allegedly denied during orientation. Id. at *16. The court determined that the
defendant’s calculation of $7,039,699 for the fingerprint claim and $5,439,000 for the
rest break claims were unreasonable. The court concluded that the defendant failed to
provide any evidence to show that these amounts were reasonable. For these reasons,
the court remanded the action to the state court.
In Kleinsasser, et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7112
(9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2022), the plaintiff filed a class action in state court. The defendant
removed the action. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand, which the
district court denied. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The
Ninth Circuit found that the district court appropriately looked at evidence beyond the
defendant’s notice of removal and found jurisdiction under the CAFA. The Ninth Circuit
reasoned that because the amount-in-controversy inquiry was intricate and involved
battling experts, it was appropriate for the district court to order an evidentiary hearing,
and that the district court had properly analyzed the scope of the class and the evidence
presented to reasonably determine that the amount-in-controversy requirement was
met. Id. at *2-3. The Ninth Circuit ruled that because the district court found the potential
number of claims times the average claim amount equaled $13,883,612.75, the district
court did not err in finding subject-matter jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling denying the motion to remand.
In Ward-Howie, et al. v. Frontwave Credit Union, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144080 (S.D.
Cal. Aug. 11, 2022), the plaintiff filed a class action in state court. The defendant
removed the action, arguing that subject-matter jurisdiction existed under the CAFA.
The plaintiff filed a motion to remand on the grounds that the defendant had not
satisfied its burden to establish that the amount-in-controversy exceeded the CAFA’s
jurisdictional threshold. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff’s complaint
asserted claims for breach of contract and violation of California’s unfair competition law
arising out of the overdraft fees charged for credit transactions. The defendant provided
an amount-in-controversy calculation of over $5 million. The plaintiff contended that the
defendant’s calculations were entirely speculative, not supported by any evidence, and
implausible. The court found that the defendant’s calculations were insufficient to invoke
federal jurisdiction because they included the valuation of an injunction prohibiting the
defendant from charging the overdraft fees at issue, but the complaint did not request
injunctive relief. Id. at *7. Thus, the court determined that the alleged amount-incontroversy for the injunctive relief of $2.77 million, could not be included in the CAFA
calculation. Removing that amount from the calculation, the court reasoned that the
defendant failed to establish that the amount-in-controversy exceeded the $5 million
minimum for jurisdiction under the CAFA. For these reasons, the court granted the
plaintiff’s motion to remand.
93
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
