Adams v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc.
829 F. Supp. 2d 1127
M.D. Ala.2011Background
- 816 Plaintiffs seek recovery of gambling losses from electronic bingo at Victoryland and Quincy’s 777 in Macon County, Alabama.
- Plaintiffs allege the machines are illegal gambling devices under Alabama law and seek voiding of wagers under Alabama Code § 8-1-150.
- Defendants include Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. (Victoryland and Quincy’s 777) and electronic-bingo suppliers Multimedia Games, IGT, Cadillac Jack, Nova Gaming, and Bally Gaming.
- Action commenced in Alabama Circuit Court and removed to federal court under CAFA mass-action provisions, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(ll), 1453.
- Amended Complaint asserts 816 named plaintiffs, most Alabama citizens, each claiming over $10,000 in damages, aggregating over $8.16 million.
- Court must determine remand viability by CAFA standards and local- or discretionary-exception provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA threshold. | 816 plaintiffs each claim >$10,000; aggregate >$5,000,000. | Aggregate >$8.16 million satisfies CAFA minimum. | Yes, aggregate amount exceeds $5,000,000. |
| Whether this is a CAFA mass action or falls under a local-event exception. | Although many plaintiffs, events at a single location, local injury. | Each plaintiff’s loss arises from separate wagering events; not a single event. | Not excluded from CAFA mass-action; remains a mass action. |
| Whether the local event exception § 1332(d)(ll)(B)(ii)(I) applies. | Events localized to Victoryland; injuries local. | Involves numerous discrete wagers; not a single event. | Not applicable; action not arising from a single event. |
| Whether § 1332(d)(4)(B) local controversy applies due to primary-defendants. | MCGP is sole Alabama citizen defendant; others are primary. | All defendants are primary; multiple primary defendants negate the exception. | § 1332(d)(4)(B) not satisfied; no mandatory remand. |
| Whether § 1332(d)(3) discretionary exception applies. | Stronger Alabaman presence should permit discretionary remand. | Number of Alabama citizens exceeds two-thirds; no basis to decline jurisdiction. | § 1332(d)(3) does not apply; court retains jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional amount clearly stated or readily deductible; aggregate calculation allowed)
- Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2006) (CAFA does not override traditional jurisdictional burden; exceptions narrow)