Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 95
J.
Tenth Circuit
In Ogden Regional Airport Association, et al. v. Ogden City Airport, 2022 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 5750 (D. Utah Jan. 11, 2022), the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were
planning to cease renewing the plaintiffs’ ground leases for airport hangars, contrary to
the defendants’ historical course of conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). In relevant part, the defendants argued the current class action fell within the
local controversy exception of the CAFA. The court denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss on this ground. Id. at *13-14. The court opined that the defendants’ jurisdiction
arguments were misguided, because neither the government entity defendant exception
nor the local controversy exception in the CAFA applies to class actions that are based
on federal question jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the local controversy and
government entity exceptions are both part of the CAFA and are codified at 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(4) and (d)(5), respectively. Id. Further, the court opined the fact that Congress
placed these limitations on jurisdiction over class actions within the diversity jurisdiction
statute indicates that they limit only the jurisdiction that courts otherwise possess under
that statute. Accordingly, because some of the plaintiffs’ claims arose under federal law
and the others fell within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, it held that the plaintiffs
met their burden of establishing that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at *1314.
K.
Eleventh Circuit
In Cavalieri, et al. v. Avior Airlines C.A., 25 F.4th 843 (11th Cir. 2022), the Eleventh Circuit
addressed the CAFA’s “minimal diversity” requirement. It provides for federal jurisdiction
over a class action if there is more than $5 million in controversy and “any member of a
class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen
or subject of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(C). In this case, two Venezuelan
citizens, one of whom is a legal permanent resident of the United States, filed a putative
class action against a Venezuelan airline for breach of contract. Id. at 848. The district
court dismissed the litigation for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh
Circuit considered whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged diversity jurisdiction. Id.
It determined that this requirement can be met in a foreign-defendant case by plausible
allegations that a nationwide class includes at least one U.S. citizen. The Eleventh
Circuit held that a foreign citizen who is a permanent resident does not qualify as a
“citizen . . . of a State” under the CAFA, which meant that the case did not satisfy the
general diversity requirements because both the plaintiffs and the defendant were noncitizens. Id. at 848-49. However, the Eleventh Circuit held that the allegations supported
minimal diversity jurisdiction under the CAFA because the plaintiffs had plausibly
alleged that “at least one unnamed class member is a U.S. citizen and resident and,
thus, is diverse from” the Venezuelan airline. Id. at 849. The Eleventh Circuit opined that
it was for “a later stage in the litigation for the district court to make the factual
determination on whether there is indeed jurisdiction.” Id. at 850.
94
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
