John Kitchin v. Bridgeton Landfill
3 F.4th 1089
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton, MO contains radioactive waste from mid-20th-century uranium operations; EPA placed the site on the Superfund list.
- Plaintiffs (local property owners and a business) filed a Missouri class action alleging Bridgeton Landfill, Republic Services, Allied Services, and Rock Road Industries caused contamination; they sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of Missouri subclasses.
- At filing, only Rock Road Industries was a Missouri citizen; Rock Road later merged into Bridgeton Landfill before removal.
- Defendants removed under CAFA (federal diversity jurisdiction); plaintiffs moved to remand invoking CAFA’s local-controversy exception, and the district court granted remand.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit considered whether the local-controversy exception applied, focusing on whether the local defendant’s conduct ‘‘forms a significant basis’’ for the class claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction to review remand | Remand order not appealable under §1291; prior §1453(c) denial bars appeal | Eighth Circuit precedent permits §1291 appeals of remand orders tied to CAFA local-controversy | Court had jurisdiction under §1291 (Jacks governs) |
| Whether CAFA local-controversy exception requires remand | Exception applies because >2/3 of class are Missouri and Rock Road is a local defendant whose conduct is significant | Plaintiffs failed to show Rock Road’s conduct is a significant basis compared with nonlocal defendants | Reversed remand: plaintiffs did not meet the exception’s requirements |
| Significant-basis (§1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb)) — are collective allegations enough? | Plaintiffs: allegations that "Defendants all engaged in the same conduct" plus limited Rock Road-specific allegations suffice | Defendants: law requires a comparative showing that the local defendant is an important ground for the claims | Court: collective, cut‑and‑paste allegations and legal conclusions are insufficient; plaintiff must show comparative significance (follows Kaufman/Westerfeld/Atwood) |
| Extrinsic EPA documents (ROD/Consent Order) showing Rock Road as a PRP | These documents demonstrate Rock Road had a significant role and so satisfy the requirement | PRP designation (and owner status) can be assigned without causation; documents do not prove comparative, significant conduct | Court: may consider extrinsic evidence but the ROD/Consent Order did not prove Rock Road’s conduct was a significant basis for the claims |
| Timing of ‘‘is a citizen’’ for local-defendant requirement (concurrence) | N/A | N/A | Concurrence: evaluate defendant citizenship at removal; Rock Road had merged away by removal, so no local defendant would exist (alternate, simpler ground) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacks v. Meridian Resource Co., 701 F.3d 1224 (8th Cir.) (§1291 appealability of remand order based on CAFA local-controversy)
- Westerfeld v. Independent Processing, LLC, 621 F.3d 819 (8th Cir.) (adopts comparative approach to significant-basis inquiry under CAFA)
- Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins., 561 F.3d 144 (3d Cir.) (comparative analysis: local defendant’s conduct compared to all defendants)
- Atwood v. Peterson, 936 F.3d 835 (8th Cir.) (concluding conclusory, collective allegations insufficient to meet significant-basis requirement)
- Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth. v. FairPay Sols., Inc., 655 F.3d 358 (5th Cir.) (requires detailed allegations or extrinsic evidence comparing local defendant’s role)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013) (CAFA should not be defeated by formalistic pleadings)