Louisiana v. American National Property & Casualty Co.
746 F.3d 633
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- CAFA case arising from Hurricane Katrina Road Home program; State assigned homeowners’ insurer claims to itself in exchange for repair funds.
- Policies at issue were assigned post-loss to the State; defendants removed to federal court based on CAFA jurisdiction.
- District court severed 1,504 individual claims from the CAFA class action after state-supreme-court ruling on policy-by-policy anti-assignment considerations.
- District courts remanded severed cases, citing Honeywell’s independent-jurisdictional-basis requirement for severed actions.
- This court previously held CAFA jurisdiction existed at removal; question is whether severed claims retain jurisdiction.
- Court reverses remand, holding CAFA jurisdiction attaches at removal and persists for severed actions; remands for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does severance defeat CAFA jurisdiction if jurisdiction existed at removal? | State: Honeywell requires independent basis post-severance. | ANPAC: time-of-removal rule applies; severed actions retain CAFA jurisdiction. | Honeywell exception inapplicable; CAFA jurisdiction remains. |
| Is Honeywell’s independent-basis rule applicable to severed CAFA claims that had original jurisdiction at removal? | State urges broad Honeywell interpretation. | Honeywell limited to supplemental-jurisdiction scenarios. | Honeywell applies only to supplemental-jurisdiction severances; not here. |
| Should post-removal events affect jurisdiction under CAFA where original jurisdiction existed at removal? | Post-removal events cannot destroy CAFA jurisdiction. | Severance should strip jurisdiction absent independent basis. | Time-of-removal rule governs; jurisdiction remains with severed claims. |
| Was CAFA jurisdiction proper at removal given class-action status and $5,000,000 threshold? | CAFA qualifies a class action with $5M+ controversy. | Post-severance facts cannot defeat CAFA. | CAFA jurisdiction proper at time of removal. |
| Should the district courts remand be upheld given severed cases? | Remand would divest proper CAFA jurisdiction. | Severed claims lack independent jurisdiction. | Remand reversed; jurisdiction retained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (post-filing events do not defeat CAFA jurisdiction)
- United Steel Workers Int’l Union v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010) (jurisdiction determined at time of filing; post-filing changes do not destroy)
- In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2010) (CAFA jurisdiction persists despite changes after removal)
- Buetow v. A.L.S. Enters., Inc., 650 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction remains despite post-removal developments)
- Metz v. Unizan Bank, 649 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2011) (denial of class certification does not destroy jurisdiction)
- Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 415 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2005) (severed action must have independent jurisdictional basis (context-specific))
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (U.S. 2004) (jurisdictional facts assessed at time of filing; post-event changes not dispositive)