ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. REMINE INC.
1:24-cv-04182
| D.N.J. | Nov 20, 2024Background
- Forty related lawsuits were brought by Atlas Data Privacy Corporation and individual law enforcement officers, alleging defendants violated New Jersey's Daniel’s Law by disclosing protected personal information.
- Plaintiffs include Atlas, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey (as assignee of over 19,000 covered persons' claims) and seven individual New Jersey law enforcement officers.
- The cases were originally filed in New Jersey state court but were removed by defendants to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and also citing jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
- Plaintiffs moved to remand the cases back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
- The court consolidated the remand motions and permitted limited discovery on the subject matter jurisdiction issue, while all District of New Jersey judges recused and the matter was reassigned to Judge Bartle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atlas is a real party in interest | Atlas is real party in interest; its citizenship controls diversity | Atlas's citizenship should be disregarded; assignors' (all NJ) controls | Atlas is real party in interest; Atlas's citizenship counts |
| Collusive assignment to destroy diversity | Assignments to Atlas were in good faith, not to defeat jurisdiction | Atlas was collusively joined as plaintiff to destroy diversity jurisdiction | No collusion; assignments and joinder were in good faith |
| Fraudulent joinder of non-diverse defendants | Joinder was proper; colorable claims against all named defendants | Joinder of non-diverse defendants was fraudulent in two actions | Fraudulent joinder only in MyHeritage case; others not fraudulent |
| Federal jurisdiction under CAFA | Actions aren’t class or mass actions under CAFA | Cases should be treated as CAFA class or mass actions | Not class/mass actions under CAFA; CAFA jurisdiction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants)
- Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (diversity jurisdiction depends on citizenship of real parties in interest)
- Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (absolute assignees are real parties in interest with standing to sue)
- Waite v. City of Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302 (assignment for purpose of collection does not defeat jurisdiction where assignments are complete)
- Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Ltd., 394 U.S. 823 (collusive assignments to create jurisdiction are not allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1359)
- Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848 (fraudulent joinder exists where there is no colorable claim against joined defendant)
- Smoot v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co., 378 F.2d 879 (court can consider evidence outside pleadings in assessing fraudulent joinder)
- Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161 (CAFA mass action requires 100 or more named plaintiffs)
- Erie Ins. Exch. v. Erie Indem. Co., 722 F.3d 154 (CAFA does not apply when a suit is not brought under a rule similar to Rule 23)