814 F.3d 236
5th Cir.2015Background
- 189 Louisiana residents sued oil companies, pipe-cleaning contractors, and landowners alleging radioactive pipe scale from pipe-cleaning operations contaminated their properties and harmed their health and property.
- Plaintiffs allege exposures from operations dating 1958–1992, with some plaintiffs diagnosed with cancers and other serious illnesses; they seek compensatory, punitive, and restitutionary relief.
- Defendants removed under CAFA as a "mass action," asserting minimal diversity, an aggregate amount in controversy over $5 million, and that at least one plaintiff’s claim exceeds the $75,000 individual threshold.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing defendants failed to prove jurisdictional amounts and that CAFA exclusions/exceptions applied; the district court granted remand, finding defendants had not shown any plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000.
- Defendants appealed; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the individual amount-in-controversy requirement was met and whether remand was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants proved at least one plaintiff’s claim exceeds CAFA’s $75,000 individual threshold | No plaintiff’s interrogatory answers sufficiently show any individual claim exceeds $75,000; remand required | Interrogatory responses and evidence show some plaintiffs (e.g., cancer diagnoses, wrongful death) likely seek > $75,000; common-sense inferences permitted | Reversed district court: defendants met burden to show at least one plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000 (remand order vacated on that ground) |
| Whether CAFA requires 100 plaintiffs each to satisfy the $75,000 threshold | Arguably higher threshold urged by implication | Defendants treated statutory language as requiring only at least one plaintiff to meet $75,000 (aggregate still required) | Court did not decide; noted Fifth Circuit had not resolved and accepted Eleventh Circuit reasoning but left issue open for remand proceedings |
| Whether the aggregate $5 million amount-in-controversy and CAFA exclusions/exceptions apply | Plaintiffs: aggregate and statutory exclusions/exceptions not satisfied or applicable | Defendants: alleged aggregate > $5 million and exclusions inapplicable | Court declined to address these issues and remanded them to the district court to decide in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Admiral Ins. Co. v. Abshire, 574 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for CAFA remand orders)
- Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (amount-in-controversy can be shown by pleadings or summary-judgment-type evidence)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S. 2014) (preponderance standard for proving amount in controversy after removal)
- De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55 (5th Cir. 1993) (common-sense inference can show amount in controversy despite plaintiffs’ contrary stipulation)
- Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995) (common-sense assessment can establish jurisdictional amount for multiple plaintiffs seeking punitive and compensatory damages)
- Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 737 F.3d 78 (5th Cir. 2013) (CAFA mass-action removal standards; burden on removing party to show aggregate and individual amounts)