Blomberg v. Service Corp. International
639 F.3d 761
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- SC I defendants removed a state-law wage-class action to federal court under CAFA.
- District court remanded, finding SCI failed to show the $5,000,000 amount in controversy by preponderance.
- Plaintiffs allege Illinois wage-law violations for unpaid hours across a proposed class of employees.
- SCI offered several estimates and evidence (including a 538-employee Illinois list and related suits) to support CAFA jurisdiction.
- Court analyzes whether plausible, good-faith estimates can establish the amount in controversy and whether SCI’s comparisons across jurisdictions were adequate.
- Court grants permission to appeal, reverses remand, and sends case back to federal court to resolve on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCI met CAFA amount in controversy by preponderance. | Plaintiffs contend the threshold was not shown. | SCI asserts plausible, good-faith estimates suffice to meet $5M. | Yes; plausible estimates sufficed and threshold met. |
| What evidentiary standard applies to CAFA removal when amount is contested. | N/A in brief here; focus on standard. | Proponent need only show plausible, not proven, jurisdictional facts. | Pleading standard; preponderance with plausible estimates acceptable. |
| Whether SCI’s cross-jurisdiction comparisons support the amount in controversy. | NA; plaintiffs challenge comparability. | Illinois liability is greater due to specific wage-law damages; Virginia comparison is useful. | Yes; comparison deemed plausible and properly used. |
| Whether district court erred in remand and the case should remain in federal court. | State-court remand rejected; federal adjudication appropriate. | Remand by district court was improper given CAFA jurisdiction. | Remand reversed; case to federal court for merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meridian Security Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006) (burden on removal is preponderance of jurisdictional facts)
- Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff-controlled facts; good-faith estimates acceptable)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (removal burden not proof; estimates suffice)
- Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc., 528 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 2008) (establishes that the stake can exceed $5M with plausible estimates)
- St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (classic standard for uncertainty in removal disputes)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requires plausible allegations to support jurisdictional stakes)