Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc.
631 F.3d 1010
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Estes Express Lines acquired G.I. Trucking (California) in 2005; G.I. Trucking became Estes West (d/b/a G.I. Trucking) but remained California corporation.
- Bradford Coleman, a California delivery driver, filed a putative class action in California state court alleging CA wage-and-hour violations and related schemes.
- Coleman asserted CAFA removal to federal court; he sought overtime, meal/rest wage penalties, wage statements, and injunctive relief for the class.
- Estes removed under CAFA; Coleman moved to remand claiming the Local Controversy Exception (§ 1332(d)(4)(A)) applied.
- The district court concluded it could not look beyond the complaint for “significant relief” from Estes West but did consider the alleged conduct; it remanded the case to state court.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the district court was limited to the complaint in evaluating the Local Controversy criteria (aa) and (bb), and affirmed remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court may look beyond the complaint for § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa) and (bb) | Coleman based on CAFA text; extrinsic evidence not required | Estes argued district court should consider extrinsic evidence (financial viability and control) | No; court must look only to the complaint for (aa) and (bb) |
| Whether “significant relief” can be determined with extrinsic evidence | Relief sought is defined by complaint and allegations | Evidence on finances could show insufficient relief against local defendant | No; relief must be determined from the complaint alone |
| Whether “conduct” forming a significant basis must be shown by complaint | Allegations in the complaint show conduct by the local defendant | Extrinsic control by parent company could negate local defendant’s basis | Yes; conduct forming a significant basis is determined from the complaint |
| Whether the remand is proper given CAFA Local Controversy criteria are met | Complaint satisfies (aa) and (bb) and the other criteria | Even if (aa)/(bb) satisfied, issues about assets or control could defeat remand | Remand affirmed; criteria (aa) and (bb) satisfied by the complaint |
| Whether the district court may permit amended pleading to address CAFA criteria | Amendment could clarify CAFA issues | Remand outcome should be based on existing pleadings | District court may allow amendment to address CAFA criteria in its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffey v. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., 581 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir.2009) (district court may look to the complaint for relief sought; no wading into financial viability)
- Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144 (3d Cir.2009) (focus on complaints, not extrinsic evidence, for CAFA §1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II) analysis)
- Evans v. Walter Industries, Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir.2006) (extrinsic evidence used for some jurisdictional questions, not for (aa)/(bb) analysis)
- Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir.2007) (amount-in-controversy/citizenship determinations may rely on extrinsic evidence; distinguishes CAFA (aa)/(bb))
- Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, Inc., 912 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir.1990) (extrinsic evidence in traditional diversity questions; not for CAFA (aa)/(bb))