Tiffany Davenport v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, 854 F.3d 905

Flint switched its water source to the Flint River in 2014; inadequate corrosion control allegedly led to lead contamination and widespread injuries to Flint residents.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Genesee County Circuit Court asserting negligence, emotional-distress claims, and unjust enrichment against Veolia, LAN, and related entities.
Defendants removed under CAFA, asserting the amount-in-controversy, size, and minimal diversity requirements were satisfied.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, invoking CAFA’s local-controversy exception, § 1332(d)(4)(A), arguing the dispute is quintessentially local.
It was undisputed that multiple prior class actions with similar factual allegations had been filed in the preceding three years against at least some of the same defendants.
The district court remanded, treating the case as a local controversy; the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding the statutory text bars application of the exception given prior class filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii) bars federal jurisdiction when similar class actions were filed within three years	The local-controversy exception should be read to allow remand where all class actions are filed in the same state and the controversy is "local" (Flint residents harmed in Flint)	The statute’s plain language disqualifies the exception if any other class action asserting similar allegations against any defendant was filed in the prior three years	The statute’s plain meaning controls: prior similar class actions preclude the local-controversy exception; CAFA jurisdiction remains

Mason v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C., 842 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2016) (addressed CAFA local-controversy requirements for the first Flint-filed class action)
Graiser v. Visionworks of Am., Inc., 819 F.3d 277 (6th Cir. 2016) (remand orders under CAFA reviewed de novo)
United States v. Henry, 819 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 2016) (statutory interpretation principles: plain meaning as starting and ending point)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (CAFA’s broad grant of federal jurisdiction emphasized)
Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., Inc., 551 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2008) (Congress designed CAFA to allow defendants to defend interstate class actions in federal court)
Vodenichar v. Halcon Energy Props., Inc., 733 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2013) (distinguishing continuation-of-first-filed suits from independent subsequent suits under § 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii))
Hood v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corp., 785 F.3d 263 (8th Cir. 2015) (doubt about applicability of local-controversy exception resolves against remand)
Dutcher v. Matheson, 840 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2016) (same)