Daniel Raskas v. Johnson & Johnson, 719 F.3d 884

Three putative Missouri class actions alleged manufacturers (Johnson & Johnson/McNeil‑PPC, Pfizer, Bayer) misled consumers into discarding safe, unexpired medication by using expiration dates, violating Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Plaintiffs sued separately in state court for replacement costs and punitive damages; defendants removed to federal court under CAFA asserting minimal diversity and >$5 million aggregate amount in controversy.
Defendants submitted affidavits showing Missouri sales during the statutory period: Pfizer ≈ $14M (Advil), Bayer ≈ $19M (Bayer Aspirin products), J&J/McNeil‑PPC ≈ $3.3M (Tylenol Cold Multi‑Symptom).
Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing sales figures are overinclusive because recoverable damages are limited to medications actually discarded and replaced; also challenged hearsay in affidavits.
The district court remanded, finding defendants failed to present a logical formula tying total sales to recoverable damages and therefore did not meet CAFA’s amount‑in‑controversy requirement.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding defendants met their preponderance burden by plausibly showing stakes exceed $5 million and rejecting the need for a detailed damages formula or exclusion of affidavits as hearsay for jurisdictional pleading purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFA’s $5M amount‑in‑controversy is met	Sales figures are overinclusive; only discarded medications are recoverable	Total Missouri sales plausibly put more than $5M in controversy; punitive damages may multiply recovery	Defendants met burden; case belongs in federal court unless recovery >$5M is legally impossible
Whether defendant must provide a damages formula tying sales to recoverable losses	District court: defendants must show formula/methodology	Defendants: no formula required; need only a plausible showing	Court rejected requirement for a precise formula; detailed methodology not needed
Whether affidavits containing sales data are inadmissible hearsay for jurisdictional showing	Sales affidavits are hearsay and insufficient	Affidavits permissible for jurisdictional pleading; proof standard is preponderance, not trial‑level evidence	Affidavits are acceptable for meeting CAFA preponderance pleading burden
Whether plaintiffs can narrow the complaint post‑removal to avoid CAFA jurisdiction	Plaintiffs limited product definition to exclude some sales	Defendants relied on operative complaint naming broader product scope	Court held plaintiffs cannot amend operative complaint post‑removal to defeat jurisdiction; broader sales counts for amount in controversy

Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir.) (standard: removing party must prove amount in controversy by preponderance)
Plubell v. Merck & Co., 434 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir.) (CAFA jurisdictional elements summarized)
Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc., 528 F.3d 982 (7th Cir.) (total charges can satisfy CAFA amount where complaint puts all charges in controversy)
Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir.) (total billings may establish amount in controversy; not an admission of liability)
Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935 (8th Cir.) (no requirement that defendant confess liability for full jurisdictional amount)
Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir.) (varied evidence admissible to meet preponderance standard for removal)
OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342 (8th Cir.) (punitive damages may be included in amount in controversy)
Keeling v. Esurance Ins. Co., 660 F.3d 273 (7th Cir.) (‘‘legally impossible’’ standard is high; improbability insufficient)
Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783 (8th Cir.) (CAFA jurisdiction determined by operative complaint at time of removal)