29 F.4th 1262
11th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Joan Simring sued GreenSky and related parties in Florida state court alleging violations of Florida law tied to stem-cell neuropathy treatments financed by GreenSky, defining the putative class as persons over 64 who visited Dr. Zuckerman after seeing the advertisement and received treatments financed by GreenSky.
- GreenSky removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), asserting federal jurisdiction (≥100 class members, minimal diversity, >$5,000,000 in controversy).
- Simring moved to remand, arguing CAFA’s home‑state and local‑controversy exceptions applied and that the amount in controversy did not exceed $5 million (she had stipulated to recover no more than $4,999,999).
- The district court remanded solely under CAFA’s local‑controversy exception, reasoning the complaint’s language (“on behalf of all other Floridians,” “Florida senior citizens”) limited the class to Florida citizens and thus satisfied the two‑thirds citizenship requirement.
- GreenSky appealed; Simring moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing appellate jurisdiction was barred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(d) and 1453(c).
- The Eleventh Circuit held it had jurisdiction, concluded CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements were met (plaintiff’s stipulation did not bind the class), and reversed the remand because Simring neither limited the class definition to Florida citizens nor submitted evidence proving over two‑thirds of the class were Florida citizens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over remand order (§1447(d), §1453(c)) | Remand order not reviewable; appeal barred by §1447(d); §1453(c) motion for permissive appeal required | Remand under CAFA local‑controversy exception is reviewable under §1291; no §1453(c) motion needed because appeal rests on §1291 | Court has appellate jurisdiction under §1291; §1447(d) does not bar review of CAFA local‑controversy remand; §1453(c) not required here |
| CAFA subject‑matter jurisdiction: amount in controversy | Stipulated to accept ≤ $4,999,999; thus <$5M | Evidence showed classwide exposure > $5M; a named plaintiff cannot bind absent class | Amount in controversy exceeds $5M; Standard Fire prevents plaintiff’s stipulation from defeating CAFA jurisdiction |
| CAFA subject‑matter jurisdiction: other thresholds (size, diversity) | N/A | At least 204 putative members; minimal diversity present because some defendants are non‑Florida | CAFA’s numerosity and minimal diversity requirements satisfied |
| Local‑controversy exception: two‑thirds Florida citizenship | Complaint language (“Floridians,” “Florida senior citizens”) shows class limited to Florida citizens; two‑thirds requirement met | Class definition on its face is not limited to Florida citizens; plaintiff offered no evidence of class members’ citizenship | Local‑controversy exception not met: class definition did not limit membership to Florida citizens and plaintiff provided no evidence proving >2/3 are Florida citizens; remand reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. City of Montgomery, 859 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2017) (remand based on CAFA local‑controversy exception not barred by §1447(d))
- Smith v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 991 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 2021) (two methods to establish >2/3 citizenship: class definition limited by citizenship or admissible evidence of members’ citizenship)
- Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2006) (plaintiffs bear burden to prove local‑controversy exception applies)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013) (named plaintiff cannot bind putative class with stipulation to avoid federal jurisdiction)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (removal amount‑in‑controversy burden and proof standard)
- Snapper, Inc. v. Redan, 171 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 1999) (§1447(d) defect limited to procedural defects in the removal process)
- MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Hanover Ins. Co., 995 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2021) (distinguishing remand after sua sponte procedural defects from CAFA local‑controversy remands)
- Blevins v. Aksut, 849 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2017) (local‑controversy exception is akin to abstention and does not deprive subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (de novo review of subject‑matter jurisdiction findings)