953 F.3d 735
11th Cir.2020Background
- 230 former employees of the Grede Foundry in Bessemer, Alabama sued ten manufacturers/distributors, alleging workplace exposure to hazardous chemicals from foundry products (e.g., foundry sands, resins, T‑gas, release agents) caused injuries.
- Plaintiffs filed in Alabama state court asserting state-law tort and products-liability claims; Imerys removed under CAFA's mass-action jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)).
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, invoking CAFA's local event exception (§ 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I)) and local controversy exception (§ 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)); the District Court granted remand under the local event exception.
- The District Court read the local event exception to cover ‘‘truly local’’ continuing harms confined to Alabama, relying on CAFA legislative history; defendants appealed interlocutorily to the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit construed "an event or occurrence" to mean either a single discrete harm-causing happening or a contextually connected series of incidents that culminate in one harm-causing event, and held the plaintiffs’ complaint did not plead such a culminating, related event; it vacated remand and returned the case to the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "an event or occurrence" in CAFA's local event exception | Phrase covers continuing, truly local sets of circumstances (not limited to a single moment). | Phrase requires a single injury-causing event or a single focused event that culminated in plaintiffs’ injuries. | "An event or occurrence" covers either a discrete harm-causing moment or a contextually connected series of incidents that culminates in one harm-causing event; not every continuing or disparate set of acts qualifies. |
| Whether plaintiffs’ complaint falls within the local event exception | The harms arose from continuous, local use of defendants’ products at one foundry, so the case is purely local and fits the exception. | Plaintiffs allege disparate products, uses, times, and harms; allegations do not show a single, related culminating event. | Complaint fails to allege related, collective conduct culminating in one harm-causing event; therefore the local event exception does not apply. |
| Use of legislative history to interpret the exception | Plaintiffs relied on Senate Report language to support a broad local-only reading. | Defendants argued textual reading controls. | Court declined to rely on legislative history because the statutory text is clear; it interpreted the phrase by its ordinary meaning. |
| Burden of proof on remand under CAFA | Plaintiffs argued they fit within the local exception (thus remand proper). | Defendants emphasized removing party bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction; plaintiffs must prove exception. | Court noted the competing burdens but deemed the question academic here because the local event exception plainly did not apply; it did not resolve the burden allocation issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard for review of remand and discussion of burdens in CAFA removals)
- Abraham v. St. Croix Renaissance Grp., L.L.L.P., 719 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2013) (holds "event or occurrence" can encompass a continuing set of related circumstances that persist over time)
- Rainbow Gun Club, Inc. v. Denbury Onshore, L.L.C., 760 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2014) (applies a connected-series test—related acts that culminate in a single focused event qualify as a local event)
- Allen v. Boeing Co., 784 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2015) (construes "an event or occurrence" more narrowly as typically a singular happening and excludes protracted pollution as "local")
- Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (declines to treat widespread, many‑interaction fraud as a single local event)
- Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014) (factual findings relevant to jurisdiction reviewed for clear error)