Blake Perritt v. Westlake Vinyls Company, L, 562 F. App'x 228

Background

A Westlake Chemical facility exploded in Geismar, Louisiana on March 22, 2012, releasing vinyl chloride monomer and prompting a shelter-in-place order within a one-mile radius.
Consolidated class actions followed alleging that Westlake caused plaintiffs’ damages from the release.
Perritt and Hollins suits were initially filed in Louisiana state court and removed to federal court; other related actions were also removed.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing lack of diversity and lack of CAFA jurisdiction; the district court initially denied, then vacated and granted remand.
Westlake petitioned for permission to appeal the remand orders under CAFA-related review; the panel granted review.
The sole issue on appeal is whether CAFA jurisdiction exists to support removal and the district court’s remand decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFA permits review of remand orders	Westlake argues §1453(c)(1) grants appellate review of CAFA-based removals/remand determinations.	Berniard-type framing: appellate review is limited to CAFA-related determinations and does not extend to ordinary removal based on diversity.	CAFA review applies to CAFA-based remand determinations; the court may review CAFA determinations on remand.
Whether CAFA jurisdiction existed based on minimal diversity and the amount in controversy	Plaintiffs contend CAFA jurisdiction may be met by minimal diversity and ≥$5,000,000 in aggregate claims.	Westlake contends the jurisdictional thresholds are satisfied, supported by its evidence.	CAFA jurisdiction did not exist; removal was not supported by the required thresholds.
Whether the number of proposed plaintiffs exceeds 99	Plaintiffs argue the class size is large enough to satisfy CAFA’s numerical threshold.	Westlake asserts the class is not shown to exceed 99 in aggregate.	The district court’s finding that the number of class members did not demonstrate CAFA jurisdiction remains unaltered.
Whether the amount in controversy is facially apparent from petitions or requires evidence	Perritt/Hollins pleadings imply damages exceeding the CAFA threshold.	The petitions do not facially show $5,000,000 in controversy; post-removal evidence may be considered only if ambiguity existed at removal.	The amount in controversy is not facially apparent from the petitions; post-removal evidence does not cure the deficiency here.
Whether Westlake’s post-removal affidavit supports CAFA jurisdiction	Affidavit suggests a large putative class and relevant damages.	Affidavit merely restates census data and shelter-in-place scope; it does not provide reliable damages metrics or population figures tied to the putative class.	Affidavit fails to establish CAFA jurisdiction; it does not provide a reliable metric for damages or population.

Key Cases Cited

Berniard v. Dow Chem. Co., 481 F. App’x 859 (5th Cir. 2010) (facial apparency not satisfied; reach of petitions overstates potential class)
Patterson v. Dean Morris, L.L.P., 448 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2006) (CAFA review limited to thresholds and nexus)
Alvarez v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 585 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 2009) (CAFA review framework and discretion)
Wallace v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 444 F.3d 697 (5th Cir. 2006) (CAFA review limitations)
Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2000) (post-removal affidavits only when jurisdiction is ambiguous)
St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250 (5th Cir. 1998) (consideration of post-removal evidence in jurisdiction)
De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55 (5th Cir. 1993) (amount in controversy burden and methods)
Saab v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 469 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2006) (context for CAFA jurisdiction and facial apparency)
Hood ex rel. Miss. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 737 F.3d 78 (5th Cir. 2013) (subject-matter jurisdiction review de novo)
Cannon v. Dow Chem. Co., 2008 WL 2308897 (E.D. La. 2008) (excluded because not an official reporter; example context)