365 F. Supp. 3d 734
E.D. La.2019Background
- Plaintiff Nicole M. Landry-Boudreaux filed a class action in Jefferson Parish state court alleging the Jefferson Parish Landfill emitted noxious odors and gases causing personal injury, nuisance, lost wages, and property diminution.
- The putative class covers persons domiciled in Jefferson Parish who sustained legally cognizable damages from the alleged emissions.
- Defendants (Waste Connections entities, Aptim, and Jefferson Parish) removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), asserting federal jurisdiction based on diversity and an amount-in-controversy over $5 million.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement is not met and that the local-controversy exception applies.
- Two earlier-filed, similar class actions (Ictech-Bendeck and Thompson) naming many of the same defendants and nearly identical classes had been removed to federal court before this suit was filed.
- The court denied remand, concluding CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements are met and the local-controversy exception does not apply given the earlier-filed similar suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA amount-in-controversy met | Landry-Boudreaux: amount-in-controversy not met; she will stipulate to less than $75,000 individually | Defendants: aggregated class claims exceed $5 million under CAFA | Court: CAFA amount-in-controversy satisfied |
| Whether CAFA local-controversy exception applies | Landry-Boudreaux: case is a local controversy warranting remand | Defendants: earlier-filed similar actions defeat local-controversy exception | Court: local-controversy exception does not apply due to prior similar suits (Ictech-Bendeck, Thompson) |
| Effect of plaintiff’s individual stipulation | Stipulation would defeat jurisdiction | Defendants: stipulation irrelevant to class-level CAFA threshold | Court: individual stipulation does not defeat CAFA jurisdiction |
| Whether remand is required | Seek remand to state court | Oppose remand; federal court has jurisdiction | Court: motion to remand denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2011) (procedural principles on removal and jurisdiction)
- Rainbow Gun Club, Inc. v. Denbury Onshore, L.L.C., 760 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2014) (CAFA jurisdiction and related procedural guidance)
- Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161 (2014) (definition and requirements for CAFA "mass action")