Koral v. Boeing Co.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Boeing sought review under CAFA’s mass action removal provisions (28 U.S.C. §§1332(d)(11), 1453) via appeals from remand orders.
- 29 Illinois state-court actions arising from the 2009 Turkey-originated Boeing crash were removed; total plaintiffs across actions were 117 in 29 suits.
- Boeing headquarters is in Illinois; most plaintiffs are nonresidents; relevant design/construction evidence allegedly located in Washington.
- Boeing removed on the theory that the 29 suits constitute a mass action because plaintiffs proposed a joint trial for efficiency.
- District judges granted remand orders; Boeing sought and the Seventh Circuit granted review for novel CAFA issue.
- The court held the removals were premature because the plaintiffs’ statement was not a proper proposal for a joint trial under CAFA; implicit proposals may be possible, but not here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under CAFA mass-action rules. | Boeing contends plaintiffs proposed a joint trial, enabling removal. | Plaintiffs’ statement was a proposal for a joint trial justifying removal. | Removal premature; not a proper proposal to support mass action removal. |
| Whether a party’s implicit or explicit proposal for a joint trial can justify removal. | If the state court could hold a mass trial, removal may be appropriate. | Only explicit proposals to the court count; here it was not a valid proposal. | Proposal must be in the court where suits are pending; the statement did not meet that standard. |
| Whether common questions of law or fact alone sufficed for CAFA mass action designation despite potential bifurcation limits. | Mass action requires common questions, which may allow joint consideration. | Even with common issues, removal hinges on a valid proposal for a joint trial. | The core issue addressed was prematurity of removal; the court did not resolve the merits of the mass-action criteria beyond prematurity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Bayer Corp., 610 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2010) (CAFA mass action removal novelty; joint-trial implications)
- Bullard v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry., 535 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2008) (prematurity and procedural aspects of removal under CAFA)
- BP America, Inc. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 613 F.3d 1029 (10th Cir. 2010) (CAFA mass action considerations)
- College of Dental Surgeons v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 585 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2009) (CAFA mass action framework and common issues)
- Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009) (implicit proposals and mass action removal implications)