Jocelyn Allen v. the Boeing Company
784 F.3d 625
9th Cir.2015Background
- Residents sued Boeing and its contractor Landau in Washington state court alleging decades-long groundwater contamination from Boeing’s Auburn plant and negligent remediation by Landau, asserting state-law claims (negligence, nuisance, trespass).
- Boeing removed under diversity and CAFA, arguing Landau was fraudulently joined and that the case is a CAFA "mass action."
- The district court found Landau not fraudulently joined (so diversity lacking) but remanded under CAFA’s local single event exception, § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I).
- Boeing obtained permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c); the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the CAFA local single event exception applied and whether Landau was fraudulently joined.
- The Ninth Circuit held the local single event exception does not apply (vacating the remand), affirmed the district court that Landau was not fraudulently joined, and referred Plaintiffs’ local-controversy CAFA argument back to the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA’s local single event exception (§1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I)) applies | Plaintiffs: contamination and injuries arose from events at Boeing’s Auburn site (local, single occurrence) | Boeing: CAFA applies; not a single event covering all claims | Held: Exception limited to a single happening; plaintiffs’ claims arise from multiple, distinct activities so exception does not apply |
| Scope of "event or occurrence" in CAFA | Plaintiffs: continuing local circumstances constitute an event | Boeing: exception should be read narrowly to allow federal jurisdiction | Held: "Event or occurrence" refers to a single happening; broad reading (e.g., Civil War-style) rejected; statutory text and legislative history support strict, narrow reading |
| Fraudulent joinder of Landau (diversity) | Plaintiffs: complaint adequately pleads Landau’s duty/liability (third-party beneficiary, negligent remediation) | Boeing: allegations conclusory; no privity; contract disclaims third-party beneficiaries; Landau acted under state supervision | Held: Boeing failed heavy burden to show joinder fraudulent; reasonable possibility state law imposes liability on Landau; joinder not fraudulent |
| Whether case fits CAFA local-controversy exception (§1332(d)(4)(A)) | Plaintiffs: more than two-thirds of class are Washington citizens and local defendant(s) form significant basis; seek significant relief | Boeing: disputed factual sufficiency and significance of Landau’s role | Held: Ninth Circuit declined to decide on appeal and remanded the local-controversy issue to the district court for initial consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (interpreting CAFA’s event-or-occurrence exclusion as limited to a single event)
- Abraham v. St. Croix Renaissance Grp., L.L.L.P., 719 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2013) (reading "event or occurrence" to include continuing circumstances at a single site)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (no antiremoval presumption in CAFA cases; burden rules for removal allegations)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (fraudulent-joinder standard; heavy burden on removing party)
- Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 631 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2011) (procedure and limits for assessing CAFA local-controversy exception; look primarily to the complaint)
- Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (framework for fraudulent joinder inquiry)
- Rainbow Gun Club, Inc. v. Denbury Onshore, L.L.C., 760 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2014) (permitting pattern-of-conduct that culminates in a single focused event to qualify as an "event or occurrence")
- Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2007) (objection party bears burden to prove applicability of CAFA exceptions)