Geoffrey Scimone v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13446

January 2012: Costa Concordia (owned/operated by Carnival) capsized off Italy; 32 deaths and numerous passenger injuries led to many lawsuits worldwide.
Florida actions: plaintiffs initially filed Scimone I (39 plaintiffs after amendment); 65 additional passengers sought to join; plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Scimone I and split into two separate state-court suits.
Two later suits: Scimone II (48 plaintiffs) and Abeid‑Saba (56 plaintiffs); each filed separately and neither sought consolidation or a joint trial.
Carnival removed both suits to federal court under CAFA’s mass‑action removal provision (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)), claiming aggregate numerosity and common issues; also asserted federal‑law/foreign‑relations jurisdiction.
District court remanded both suits for lack of CAFA mass‑action jurisdiction; Eleventh Circuit granted interlocutory appeal and affirmed remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFA § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i) permits removal when separate lawsuits aggregate 100+ plaintiffs but no single suit proposes a joint trial	Plaintiffs: CAFA requires a proposal to try 100+ claims jointly; here each complaint named <100 and plaintiffs never proposed joint trial, so no federal jurisdiction	Carnival: plaintiffs’ prior single filing and split into two near‑identical suits implicitly proposed a joint trial; defendants can remove because in aggregate there are 104 plaintiffs with common questions	Held: No CAFA mass‑action jurisdiction. The statute requires that 100+ persons’ claims be “proposed to be tried jointly” prior to removal; plaintiffs did not so propose and defendants cannot manufacture that proposal.

Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir.) (assess jurisdictional facts at time of removal)
Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.) (burden of establishing removal jurisdiction rests with removing defendant)
Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945 (11th Cir.) (jurisdictional analysis focuses on time of removal)
Anderson v. Bayer Corp., 610 F.3d 390 (7th Cir.) (plaintiffs may avoid CAFA mass‑action removal by filing separate suits <100 unless they propose joint trial)
Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir.) (CAFA mass‑action does not apply where none of multiple state actions involves 100+ plaintiffs and neither parties nor trial court proposed consolidation)
Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., 551 F.3d 405 (6th Cir.) (distinguishes CAFA amount‑in‑controversy aggregation issues from mass‑action joint‑trial requirement)