46 F. Supp. 3d 64
D.D.C.2014Background
- NCL filed a public-interest DC Superior Court action against BBUSA alleging deceptive marketing of wheat-labeled products.
- Removal to this district court occurred on Oct. 28, 2013; BBUSA claimed diversity or CAFA jurisdiction.
- NCL moved to remand; the court held no subject-matter jurisdiction exists under diversity or CAFA.
- The court found the Monachelli declaration valid but insufficient to meet the amount in controversy.
- The court rejected statutory damages for aggregation, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive-cost arguments for jurisdiction.
- The court granted remand and denied fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under diversity or CAFA | NCL contends no valid jurisdiction exists | BBUSA argues diversity or CAFA confer jurisdiction | Remand granted; no federal jurisdiction under diversity or CAFA |
| Validity and impact of the Monachelli declaration | Declaration is flawed and cannot support removal | Declaration is valid and supports jurisdiction | Declaration ultimately accepted; aggregation and AIC still insufficient |
| Whether statutory damages affect AIC | Damages to consumers, not NCL, cannot be aggregated | Statutory damages applicable to NCL should count | Statutory damages do not satisfy AIC for NCL; not aggregable |
| Whether attorneys' fees can be included in AIC | Fees should not be aggregated to meet AIC | Fees may be included | Fees are not included for jurisdictional calculation |
| Whether injunctive costs or settlement offers affect AIC/CAFA | Injunctive costs and settlement offers are speculative | They could push AIC over threshold | Neither injunctive costs nor settlement offers established AIC; not added |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969) (non-aggregation principle for jurisdictional damages)
- Breakman v. AOL LLC, 545 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2008) (limits on aggregating damages for AIC; attorney fees not presumed)
- Zuckman v. Monster Beverage Corp., 958 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2013) (plaintiff's share of fees; damages not aggregated for public-action suit)
- Mostofi v. Network Capital Funding Corp., 798 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2011) (timing and inclusion of removal data; amendment/supplement considerations)
- Hood v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd., 639 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2009) (strict reading of removal statute; remand for lack of jurisdiction)
- Bauman v. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp., 747 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (CAFA class-action definition requires substantial similarity to Rule 23)
- McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2008) (settlement offers as evidence of AIC for removal)