561 F.Supp.3d 562
E.D.N.C.2021Background
- Plaintiff Tammy Priselac (NC resident) filed a putative class action in state court alleging PFC contamination from the Fayetteville Works Site that contaminated Cape Fear River–supplied CFPUA household water; class: persons who used CFPUA Cape Fear River water ≥1 year.
- Defendants include corporate entities (Chemours, DuPont, Delaware citizens, alleged primary actors) and three individual managing defendants (NC citizens, site managers); claims include negligence, trespass, nuisance, unjust enrichment, NCUVTA, battery, and request for medical monitoring.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); they moved to dismiss and plaintiff moved to remand.
- Court evaluated CAFA jurisdictional prerequisites: minimal diversity, class size (≥100), and amount in controversy (>$5,000,000) and concluded defendants met their burden on each prong.
- Plaintiff invoked CAFA’s local-controversy exception and discretionary exception; the court rejected both: (1) a prior class action (Nix) filed within three years presented similar factual allegations; (2) the North Carolina managing defendants were not defendants from whom the class seeks "significant relief" nor did their conduct form a "significant basis" for all claims; (3) plaintiff failed the discretionary-exception prerequisites (citizenship thresholds and primary-defendant citizenship).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA jurisdiction exists | Priselac argued removal was improper under CAFA | Defendants argued CAFA minimal diversity, class size, and amount-in-controversy requirements were satisfied | CAFA jurisdiction exists: minimal diversity, ≥100 class members, and >$5M amount in controversy satisfied |
| Whether local-controversy exception (28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4)(A)) applies | Priselac argued exception applies because most class members are NC citizens, injuries occurred in NC, managing defendants are NC citizens, and no similar class was filed in prior 3 years | Defendants argued Nix (prior class action) alleges similar factual wrongdoing and class seeks most relief from out-of-state corporate defendants, not NC managers | Exception does not apply: Nix asserts similar factual allegations; NC managing defendants are not targets from whom "significant relief" is sought nor do their actions form a "significant basis" for all claims |
| Whether Nix (earlier class action) is a | |||
| "similar" prior class action | Priselac argued Nix differs (e.g., no medical monitoring claim; different claims against managers) | Defendants argued Nix concerns same defendants, same Fayetteville Works Site, same alleged PFC discharges and harms, and overlaps in proof | Court held Nix presents similar factual allegations despite differences in theories/claims; thus the "no other class action" element fails for remand |
| Whether CAFA discretionary exception (28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(3)) applies | Priselac argued discretionary factors favor remand and claimed the citizenship thresholds could be satisfied | Defendants argued plaintiff cannot meet preliminary citizenship prerequisites; corporate defendants are not NC citizens | Exception not satisfied: plaintiff failed the citizenship prerequisites (well over two-thirds of class are NC citizens and primary defendants are Delaware citizens), so court did not reach discretionary factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Strawn v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 530 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2008) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; removal rules reminder)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts’ limited jurisdiction principles)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2014) (removal procedure and burden for notices of removal)
- Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161 (U.S. 2014) (CAFA jurisdictional standards)
- Quicken Loans Inc. v. Alig, 737 F.3d 960 (4th Cir. 2013) (CAFA elements: minimal diversity, amount in controversy, class size)
- Dominion Energy, Inc. v. Ciey of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys., 928 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2019) (presumption favoring removal under CAFA and removing party’s burden)
- Dutcher v. Matheson, 840 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2016) (interpretation of CAFA local-controversy exception)
- Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2009) (definition and analysis of "significant basis" and "significant relief" under CAFA)