813 F. Supp. 2d 69
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Stein and Kunu filed a DC Superior Court complaint alleging DCCPA violations by AmEx entities.
- Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add Amavi Kunu and pursued seven DCCPA claims.
- Defendants removed the action to federal district court in DC on July 29, 2011.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand to state court and sought an award of costs.
- Court analyzes removal jurisdiction and grants remand and an award of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal question jurisdiction exists under §1331 | Stein argues no federal question; FAC relies on DC law (DCCPA) only. | Defendants contend Fourth Amendment concerns create federal question. | No federal question jurisdiction; well-pleaded complaint controls. |
| Whether CAFA provides jurisdiction | Not relying on class action CAFA framework; action not a CAFA class action. | Action resembles a representative 'class' action under CAFA. | CAFA does not provide jurisdiction; Breakman rule controls. |
| Whether remand and costs should be awarded | Remand appropriate; costs of removal should be awarded. | Opposes remand; argues federal jurisdiction exists. | Remand granted; costs awarded to plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers v. Ins. Co. of the West, 366 F.Supp.2d 33 (D.D.C.2005) (burden on mover to show jurisdiction; courts have limited jurisdiction)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 ( Supreme Court 1938) (jurisdictional presumption in favor of remand in doubtful cases)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court 1994) (jurisdiction based on facially pleaded claims)
- Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court 1998) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal jurisdiction)
- Breakman v. AOL, L.L.C., 545 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C.2008) (CAFA not alternative basis for jurisdiction when DC representative action exists)
- G. Keys PC/Logis NP, 630 F.Supp.2d 13 (D.D.C.2009) (CAFA analysis applicable to representative actions)
- InPhonic, Inc., 674 F.Supp.2d 273 (D.D.C.2009) (CAFA and class action analysis in DC)
- National Consumers League v. General Mills, Inc., 680 F.Supp.2d 132 (D.D.C.2010) (CAFA and remand considerations in DC context)
- Johnson-Brown v. 2200 M Street, LLC, 257 F.Supp.2d 175 (D.D.C.2003) (costs and fees following improper removal)
- Breakman v. AOL, L.L.C., 545 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C.2008) (representative action under DCCPA vs. CAFA framework)