Brian Hartis v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19114
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hartises sued Chicago Title in Missouri state court alleging over-collected recording fees across closings; CAFA removal initiated and district court denied remand.
- Removal relied on CAFAs $5 million threshold, using Hartises’ claims and a class potentially spanning 17 states plus DC; district court used Hartises’ petition and Ellis affidavit estimating thousands of transactions.
- Hartises appealed, district court remanded to reassess whether over $5 million was proven, and later again held jurisdiction satisfied after considering Hartises’ petition and Chicago Title’s affidavit.
- Hartises’ class-certification motion was denied; they moved to amend to add punitive-damages claim; district court later denied leave to amend due to late filing and lack of good cause.
- Chicago Title then offered judgment under Rule 68; Hartises rejected; court later dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; clerical error in judgment followed, with Rule 60(a) discussion not granting relief in this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA amount in controversy met | Hartis: no preponderance of evidence to exceed $5M | Chicago Title: numbers and class size show >$5M | Jurisdictional amount satisfied by preponderance of evidence |
| Abuse of discretion in denying punitive-damages amendment | Late amendment justified by no good cause | Deadline applied; amendment untimely | No abuse; court did not err in denying amendment |
| Mootness and Rule 68 offers | Offer should not moot claims if punitive damages added | Offer fully satisfies Hartises’ demands; mootness proper | Claims rendered moot; district court’s dismissal affirmed; clerical correction discussed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for CAFA jurisdiction; preponderance of evidence; threshold analysis)
- Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc., 528 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 2008) (burden to show amount in controversy; pleading standard not requiring liability confession)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (context on CAFA/how to measure amount in controversy)
- Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 2010) (preponderance standard; fact-finder may conclude damages exceed threshold)
- Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488 (8th Cir. 2008) (good-cause standard for modifications to scheduling orders)