Campbell v. American International Group, Inc. (Aig)
926 F. Supp. 2d 178
D.D.C.2013Background
- Campbell filed suit in D.D.C. against AIG and its directors on behalf of Equity Units holders.
- She asserts breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Delaware and New York law, alleging bad faith and unjust enrichment.
- She asserts no federal claim and no diversity jurisdiction; defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Campbell argues federal jurisdiction exists under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p and 78bb(f) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1367(a), 1391(b).
- The court analyzes the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, concluding no federal jurisdiction over state-law claims exists.
- Ultimately, the court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Uniform Standards Act confer federal jurisdiction over state-law covered class actions here? | Campbell claims §77p(d)(1) independently creates jurisdiction. | The Act preserves but does not grant independent jurisdiction; jurisdiction is not created by §77p(d). | No; §77p(d) preserves actions but does not provide jurisdiction. |
| Is removal under §77p(c) a basis for federal jurisdiction over this state-law action? | Removal should render the action removable to federal court. | Removal is limited and does not establish original federal jurisdiction for purely state-law claims. | Removal authority exists to terminate precluded actions, not to create jurisdiction for state-law claims alone. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (U.S. 2006) (explains Reform Act impact on state-class actions and preclusion/removal structure)
- Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, 547 U.S. 71 (U.S. 2006) (discusses preclusion/removal under the Uniform Standards Act)
- Atkinson v. Morgan Asset Mgmt., Inc., 658 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2011) (UDA preclusion/removal framework for covered actions)
- Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 593 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2010) (UDA savings clauses preserve certain state-law claims)
- Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009) (UDA preserves/sustains preclusion/removal framework)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (reminds court of limited jurisdiction and requirement to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)