146 F. Supp. 3d 590
D. Del.2015Background
- Plaintiff Marlin Johnson, a Florida resident, filed suit in Delaware Superior Court against Organo entities for injuries from Ganoderma Lucidum in Organo coffee.
- Plaintiff alleges failure to warn and labeling defects; seeks six counts including consumer fraud and negligent labeling.
- Defendants removed to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and CAFA § 1332(d).
- Plaintiff moves to remand, arguing lack of complete diversity and insufficient amount in controversy; CAFA aggregation contested.
- Court denies remand, finds complete diversity and that the claims share a common nucleus of operative facts, supporting federal jurisdiction over the entire action.
- Court ultimately concludes jurisdiction exists under diversity for all claims and does not reach CAFA questions
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there complete diversity to support removal? | Johnson argues diversity is lacking. | Organo argues complete diversity exists between Florida plaintiff and Nevada defendants. | Yes; complete diversity exists. |
| Does the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 for removal based on the plaintiff’s individual claim? | Johnson disputes sufficient amount for individual claim. | Organo asserts individual claim exceeds $75,000. | Yes; individual claim likely exceeds $75,000. |
| Can CAFA/supplemental jurisdiction apply to absent class members’ claims? | Allapattah overruled Packard, limiting supplemental jurisdiction. | Allapattah permits supplemental jurisdiction where some plaintiffs satisfy amount in controversy. | Supplemental jurisdiction exists because claims share common nucleus of operative facts; CAFA not necessary to decide. |
| Are the class-action claims tied to a common nucleus of operative facts with the individual claim? | Johnson’s injury separate from class claims due to differing facts. | Claims share common facts—failure to warn and labeling. | Yes; all claims share a common nucleus of operative facts. |
| Is removal proper under CAFA versus traditional diversity analysis? | Remand warranted under CAFA and lack of sufficient aggregation. | Removal proper under diversity and potential CAFA application. | Court relies on diversity and common nucleus; CAFA not necessary to resolve. |
Key Cases Cited
- Packard v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir. 1993) (class-action related to jurisdictional thresholds under prior framework)
- Zahn v. Int’l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1973) (overruled by Allapattah regarding supplemental jurisdiction in class actions)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005) (overruled Packard’s strict reliance on amount in controversy for each class member; allows supplemental jurisdiction)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1966) (nucleus of operative facts test for related claims in a case)
- Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348 (U.S. 1961) (original basis for determining amount in controversy on removal)