Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc.
627 F.3d 1096
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Estes Express, a Virginia company, acquired California-based G.I. Trucking in 2005, which became Estes West and operated as an internal regional division.
- Estes Express exercises significant control over Estes West: policies, payroll, benefits, handbook, breaks, job descriptions, and lay-offs are set by Estes Express.
- Coleman, formerly with G.I. Trucking/Estes West (2004–2009), sued for California wage/hour violations in state court as a proposed class action.
- Estes Express removed the case to federal court under CAFA, asserting a local controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A).
- The district court remanded, finding the local controversy exception potentially applicable; Estes Express seeks appellate review under § 1453(c)(1).
- This appeal concerns whether the local controversy exception applies and whether extrinsic evidence may be used to determine who pays a judgment under § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal of a remand order under § 1453(c)(1) is appropriate given unsettled CAFA questions. | Coleman argues no immediate appeal because CAFA questions are unsettled. | Estes Express argues appeal is appropriate to resolve an important CAFA issue. | Grant the application to appeal. |
| Whether the district court may consider extrinsic evidence to decide § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa) versus only pleadings. | Coleman contends extrinsic evidence may be needed to determine who pays the judgment. | Estes Express contends the question can be decided from the pleadings; extrinsic evidence may be necessary for (aa). | Remand appeal granted to resolve the issue. |
| Whether the local controversy exception applies to this case. | Coleman disputes that substantial California defendants are implicated. | Estes Express argues the exception applies due to local impact and control by a California entity. | The court grants leave to appeal to determine applicability of the local controversy exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coll. of Dental Surgeons of P.R. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 585 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2009) (guides CAFA §1453(c)(1) leave-to-appeal analysis; non-CAFA issues weigh less)
- BP Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma, 613 F.3d 1029 (10th Cir. 2010) (adoption of First Circuit criteria for CAFA appeals)
- Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2006) (local controversy aims to keep controversy local; extrinsic evidence relevance)
- Coffey v. Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold, 581 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2009) (illustrates circuit split on looking beyond pleadings for local controversy)
- Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1987) (discusses look beyond pleadings for jurisdictional issues)