505 F. App'x 854
11th Cir.2013Background
- Unum appeals a district court remand decision in a CAFA case involving a putative Florida class of LTC policyholders
- Named plaintiffs Manns, Florida residents since 2005, purchased LTC policies in 1998 in Connecticut
- Manns paid Connecticut premium rates since at least 2008 despite Florida residence
- Manns filed May 2012 in Manatee County seeking declaratory relief, damages, injunctive relief, and fees
- Unum removed to federal court in June 2012 asserting CAFA jurisdiction (diversity, 100+ class members, >$5M in controversy)
- District court remanded after determining the injunctive-relief amount was too speculative to meet CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement
- Court reviews remand de novo and unanimously affirms the district court’s remand decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA jurisdiction exists over the action? | Manns argue CAFA proper; Unum argues meets jurisdiction | Unum asserts diversity, >100 members, and >$5M in controversy | No CAFA jurisdiction; case remanded to state court |
| Whether injunctive relief value can count toward amount in controversy? | Injunctive value may be counted if monetary | Injunctive value speculative; should not be included | Injunctive relief value is speculative and cannot be included in AIC |
| Whether the injunction related to future premiums can be used to meet CAFA thresholds? | Potential future revenue could push AIC over $5M | Future revenue from non-renewed policies is not guaranteed | Cannot rely on future speculative revenue to meet CAFA thresholds |
| Standard of review for remand under CAFA | District court erred in remanding | Remand proper if CAFA not satisfied | Remand affirmed; de novo review applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (establishing CAFA AIC standards; reasonable deductions allowed; need not be speculative)
- Leonard v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 279 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2002) (injunctive relief value not monetary if plaintiff can avoid purchase of insurance)
- Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805 (11th Cir. 2003) (AIC valuation principles for injunctive relief)
- Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006) (strictly construe removal statutes; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Lutz v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 328 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (injunctive relief immeasurable; class can avoid purchasing insurance)