365 F. Supp. 3d 725
E.D. La.2019Background
- Plaintiff Savannah Thompson filed a Louisiana class action (La. C.C.P. art. 591) alleging the Jefferson Parish Landfill emitted noxious odors and gases damaging nearby residents and property; class limited to Jefferson Parish domiciliaries.
- Defendants include Waste Connections entities (Delaware corporations, PPB in Texas), Aptim Corp., Louisiana Regional Landfill Company, and Jefferson Parish.
- Waste Connections removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), asserting minimal diversity and an amount-in-controversy over $5 million; Thompson moved to remand claiming several CAFA exceptions.
- A separate, earlier-filed class action (Ictech-Bendeck) alleging nearly identical claims against many of the same defendants was filed five days before Thompson’s suit and was also removed to federal court.
- The district court evaluated jurisdictional prerequisites (minimal diversity and $5M threshold) and whether CAFA exceptions applied: the local-controversy exception, the home-state exception, and CAFA’s discretionary declination provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA jurisdiction (minimal diversity & amount-in-controversy) | Amount-in-controversy not facially met | Class size, alleged damages, lost revenues and potential injunction make $5M plausible | CAFA jurisdiction satisfied (minimal diversity met; amount-in-controversy exceeded $5M) |
| Local-controversy exception (§1332(d)(4)(A)(ii)) | Exception applies because controversy is local to Louisiana | Exception fails because an earlier class action (Ictech-Bendeck) with similar allegations was filed within 3 years, implicating coordination concerns | Exception does not apply because Ictech-Bendeck was filed earlier and asserts similar allegations against common defendants |
| Home-state exception (§1332(d)(3)) | Jefferson Parish is primary local defendant, so home-state exception applies | Other primary defendants (Waste Connections, Aptim) are out-of-state; plaintiff hasn’t proven they are not primary defendants | Exception does not apply; plaintiff failed to show all primary defendants are Louisiana citizens |
| CAFA discretionary declination (§1332(d)(3)) | Court should decline jurisdiction in interests of justice | Inapplicable because citizenship precondition (greater than one-third but less than two-thirds local) not met; class is wholly local | Not applicable; proposed class comprises only Louisiana domiciliaries, so threshold not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2011) (standards for removal/amount-in-controversy proof)
- Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 814 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2015) (removing defendant may meet burden with pleadings or summary-evidence)
- Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (amount-in-controversy proof via summary-judgment-type evidence)
- In re Katrina Canal Litig. Breaches, 524 F.3d 700 (5th Cir. 2008) (state class-action statute qualifies under CAFA)
- Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth. v. FairPay Sols., Inc., 655 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2011) (interpretation of CAFA local-controversy exception)
- Vodenichar v. Halcon Energy Props., Inc., 733 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2013) (continuation-of-action analysis under CAFA local-controversy exception)
- Watson v. City of Allen, Tex., 821 F.3d 634 (5th Cir. 2016) (treatment of CAFA exceptions and related analysis)
- Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2007) (citizenship requirement as prerequisite for discretionary declination)