Leslie Pinciaro Dudley v. Eli Lilly and Comany
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24504
11th Cir.2014Background
- Lilly removed the class action to federal court under CAFA; the district court remanded for lack of sufficient amount in controversy.
- Dudley alleged Lilly denied certain incentive payments (VOB, CVM, SVC, RRT) to former Fixed Duration Employees, defining a class of all such employees.
- The district court found Lilly failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million with a preponderance of the evidence because Lilly did not identify class size by category or per-member damages.
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens clarified CAFA removal standards, limiting anti-removal presumptions and requiring a preponderance showing when contested.
- Lilly offered affidavits and ranges for potential damages but failed to tie estimates to specific class segments or actual past payments, leaving the court to guess at allocation and amounts.
- CAFA authorizes removal where at least 100 class members are involved, the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and any member is a citizen of a different state from any defendant; removal can occur at any stage if properly noticed within applicable time limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly remanded for lack of CAFA amount in controversy. | Dudley argues Lilly's removal lacked a credible, category-specific AIC. | Lilly contends the AIC was met and may be proven through plausible calculations. | Yes; district court did not clearly err in finding AIC not proven by preponderance. |
| Whether Lilly's AIC calculations were adequate under Dart and CAFA standards. | Dudley challenges Lilly’s generalized, mid-point estimates lacking per-category allocation. | Lilly asserts it provided a reasonable evidential foundation and may refine later. | No; calculations failed to link amounts to categories and did not show per-member damages. |
| Whether evidence could later establish AIC exceeded $5 million despite current record. | Future discovery could reveal larger damages. | CAFA allows later attempts if grounds become apparent; current record must support removal. | The record did not establish removal burden; remand affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of jurisdictional issues; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2009) (limits on jurisdictional assessment; distinguish ultimate jurisdiction from component facts)
- S. Fla. Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 745 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2014) (burden on removing party to show amount in controversy by preponderance; evidentiary standard for CAFA AIC)
- Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006) (CAFA jurisdictional requirements; factors in determining AIC)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (later-discovered facts may prompt second removal under CAFA)