Robert Hurst v. Nissan North America, 511 F. App'x 584

Hurst filed a statewide Missouri class action against Nissan for allegedly defective dashboards (Dec 14, 2009).
Nissan removed to federal court under CAFA after class was certified and trial set; remand denied by district court based on CAFA amount in controversy ($5M+) not met.
District court determined the amount in controversy at removal was at most $2,858,000, so CAFA jurisdiction was not satisfied.
Hurst proposed punitive-damages jury instructions shortly before trial; Nissan removed arguing CAFAS amount satisfied and removal was timely.
Court held punitive damages were not pleadable under Missouri law at the time of removal, so damages were not recoverable in excess of $5M.
Nissan sought appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1453; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the remand order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFA removal was proper given punitive damages were not pleadable.	Hurst contends damages could not exceed $5M because punitive damages were not plead.	Nissan argues punitive damages could be awarded if later plead, making case removable.	Remand affirmed; not removable at time of removal.
Whether removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).	N/A (not challenged for timing by plaintiff on appeal).	Removal timely because it followed Hurst's punitive-damages instruction proposal.	Removal timely; the timing issue resolved in Nissan's favor.

Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) (CAFA jurisdiction under preponderance standard)
Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009) (burden on proponent to show amount in controversy at removal)
Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2012) (time of removal controls jurisdictional inquiry)
Green v. Study, 286 S.W.3d 236 (Mo. App. 2009) (punitive damages require pleadings to be recoverable under Missouri law)
Benson v. Jim Maddox Nw. Imports, Inc., 728 S.W.2d 668 (Mo. App. 1987) (punitive damages necessitate separate pleading)