Jaclyn Waters v. Ferrara Candy Co.
873 F.3d 633
8th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Jaclyn Waters filed a putative class action in St. Louis Circuit Court alleging Ferrara sold "slack-filled" Red Hots boxes in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and seeking damages, restitution/disgorgement, and injunctive relief for purchases within five years.
- Ferrara removed under CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)), asserting the aggregated class claims and potential injunction-related costs push the amount in controversy above $5 million.
- Waters moved to remand, arguing the amount in controversy does not meet CAFA's $5 million threshold; the district court granted remand applying the plaintiffs’ viewpoint rule and alternatively finding Ferrara failed under the either-viewpoint rule.
- Ferrara submitted affidavits: sales figures for Red Hots (2012–2016) including City of St. Louis/Kansas City amounts, and an executive’s estimate that necessary production-equipment changes to comply with a potential injunction would exceed $6,000,000.
- The Eighth Circuit granted permission to appeal the remand order and reviewed de novo whether Ferrara proved by a preponderance of the evidence that CAFA’s amount-in-controversy was satisfied.
- The court affirmed remand, holding Ferrara did not meet its burden under either the plaintiffs’ viewpoint or the either-viewpoint approach because monetary relief and fees likely fell below $5M and Ferrara’s injunction-cost affidavits were speculative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper viewpoint to calculate CAFA amount-in-controversy (plaintiffs’ viewpoint vs either-viewpoint) | Use plaintiffs’ viewpoint: aggregate value of class members’ claims | Congress authorized either-viewpoint under CAFA; courts may count defendant’s total potential costs including injunction compliance | Court need not decide rule; Ferrara failed under either rule, so remand affirmed |
| Whether Ferrara proved amount-in-controversy > $5M by preponderance | Amount in controversy is below $5M | Ferrara’s sales data and executive affidavit (>$6M injunction costs) show threshold met | Ferrara failed: monetary relief and fees would be under $5M and injunction-cost estimate was speculative and insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (Sup. Ct.) (when plaintiff contests amount-in-controversy, defendant must prove threshold by preponderance of the evidence)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir.) (amount-in-controversy may be established by specific factual allegations plus reasonable extrapolations)
- Raskas v. Johnson & Johnson, 719 F.3d 884 (8th Cir.) (addressing evidentiary sufficiency for amount-in-controversy in removal)
- Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir.) (procedure for disputes over amount-in-controversy after removal)
- Northup Props., Inc. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 567 F.3d 767 (6th Cir.) (rejecting speculative affidavits that require "judicial star-gazing" to value claim)