Carrigan v. Southeast Alabama Rural Health Associates (JOINT ASSIGN)
2:17-cv-00114
M.D. Ala.Sep 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Carrigan and Gates filed a putative class action in Pike County, Alabama, alleging SARHA lost patient medical records (Nov. 2011–Aug. 2016) due to defendants’ failure to maintain the database that housed the records.
- Proposed class: all persons treated at SARHA facilities in Alabama during the relevant period whose records should have been preserved; SARHA had received 700+ requests it could not fulfill.
- Claims: (1) violation of Alabama administrative rules (Ala. Admin. Code ch. 545-x-4-.08 & -.09) and (2) negligence/wantonness; complaint seeks unspecified damages, fines, penalties, fees, and costs.
- Defendants Greenway and EHS removed under CAFA, asserting (a) minimal diversity, (b) more than 100 class members, and (c) aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000—based on Alabama statutory fines (up to $10,000 per violation) and an asserted large class size.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing defendants failed to prove the $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy and minimal diversity; alternatively invoked CAFA’s local controversy exception.
- The district court granted remand, holding the removing defendants failed to meet their burden to show the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA amount-in-controversy ($5M) satisfied | Amount not shown; complaint seeks unspecified damages so remand required | Amount satisfied because Alabama law authorizes up to $10,000 fines per record and class is large (allegedly up to 70,000) | Remand: defendants failed to prove by preponderance that amount exceeds $5M |
| Whether minimal diversity exists under CAFA | Challenges defendants’ showing of minimal diversity | Defendants asserted minimal diversity in removal notice | Court declined to decide after ruling on amount; remand on amount-in-controversy ground |
| Whether CAFA local-controversy exception applies | Alternatively invoked local controversy exception | Defendants argued CAFA applies broadly; removal proper | Not reached because court remanded for lack of amount-in-controversy |
| Proper evidentiary showing for CAFA removal | Plaintiff: defendants must produce factual evidence, not conclusory assertions | Defendants: may rely on reasonable inferences from statutes and class size | Court: defendant must prove amount-in-controversy by preponderance with facts; statutory fines inapplicable here and offered only conclusory assertions |
Key Cases Cited
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (no antiremoval presumption under CAFA)
- Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (CAFA jurisdictional requirements and removal burden)
- Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316 (defendant must prove amount-in-controversy by preponderance when plaintiff seeks unspecified damages)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (defendant need not prove amount beyond all doubt but must show facts)
- Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (courts may rely on evidence and reasonable inferences in assessing CAFA amount)
- Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (removing party bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
- Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (removal statutes construed strictly; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)