Caufield v. EMC Mortgage Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78646
S.D.W. Va2011Background
- Caufield sued EMC Mortgage Corporation in WV state court asserting WVCCPA violations, multiple late fees, unlawful default charges, and misrepresentation of claim amount, individually and on behalf of a class.
- EMC removed the case to SDWV under CAFA, contending >$5,000,000 in controversy, minimal diversity, and 100+ potential class members.
- Plaintiff moved to remand and for attorneys’ fees, arguing the CAFA thresholds were not met and removal was improper.
- The court discusses CAFA standards (28 U.S.C. §1332(d)) and holdings in Strawn and Krivonyak and analyzes class size and amount-in-controversy questions.
- Court holds the class size is not proven to be 100+ members, and the amount in controversy is not demonstrated by preponderant evidence, considering statutory damages, injunctive relief, and fees.
- Ultimately the court grants remand to state court and awards attorneys’ fees to plaintiff for improper removal; scheduling order canceled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA jurisdiction exists? | Caufield argues EMC failed to prove 100+ class members and $5M at issue. | EMC argues evidence supports CAFA thresholds via class size and penalties. | CAFA jurisdiction not proven; remand granted. |
| Class size sufficient to meet CAFA | Plaintiff contends class cannot reach 100 members without proof. | Defendant asserts widespread servicing implies 100+ members. | Not proven; court finds no evidence the class contains 100+ members. |
| Amount in controversy exceeds $5M | Plaintiff argues no basis to assume damages or penalties exceed threshold. | Defendant multiplies possible penalties by loans serviced to exceed $5M. | Not proven beyond speculation; CAFA threshold not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Md. Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc., 407 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2005) (strictly construes removal jurisdiction; skepticism tolerates remand when doubtful)
- Strawn v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 530 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2008) (removal burden on defendant to prove jurisdiction; affidavit-based estimates must be substantiated)
- Bartnikowski v. NVR, Inc., 307 Fed.Appx. 730 (4th Cir. 2009) (estimation of amount in controversy via attorneys’ fees must avoid pure speculation)
- Gibson v. Tinkey, 822 F.Supp. 347 (S.D.W.Va. 1993) (recognizes discretionary denial of fees on remand when removal lacked basis)