Travelers Property Casualty v. Good, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15527

Travelers seek a federal declaratory judgment that its policies do not cover Good’s class-action claim under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
Good sued Rogan Shoes in Illinois state court for statutory damages up to $1,000 per unlawful receipt; the class sought about $387 million.
Rogan Shoes settled with Good for $16 million, with settlement proceeds payable from Travelers’ policies; Rogan Shoes assigned its claims against Travelers to the Good class.
Good’s supplemental citation proceeding in state court to discover Travelers’ assets was served in January 2011; Travelers filed suit in federal court on January 31, 2011 seeking non-coverage.
The district court dismissed Travelers’ action under Wilton/Brillhart abstention because parallel state proceedings existed, and this court reviews jurisdiction, including aggregation and assignment issues, de novo.
The court ultimately held there was no subject-matter jurisdiction because aggregation of class members’ claims could not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.	Travelers argues aggregation of multiple class claims can satisfy $75,000 threshold.	Rogan Shoes’ assignment to the Good class destroys a single-unit controversy; aggregation is improper.	No; aggregation fails; no jurisdiction.
Whether the assignment defeats or enables federal jurisdiction.	Assignment to class could still permit a federal forum under diversity.	Assignment defeats unitary controversy and undermines diversity-based jurisdiction.	Assignment does not create jurisdiction; lacks an aggregable common fund.
Whether Eclipse Manufacturing’s removal reasoning controls.	Eclipse suggests removal possible under CAFA-like logic.	Eclipse is not controlling; here the removal window expired.	Eclipse rejected on material points; removal deadline expired; jurisdiction absent.

Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969) (aggregation allowed for common and undivided interests when appropriate)
Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973) (origin of anti-aggregation in diversity jurisdiction)
Meridian Security Insurance Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006) (aggregation not allowed when no common fund and interests are separate and distinct)
Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Maltes, 313 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1963) (common fund doctrine; aggregation allowed only with a joint interest in a single fund)
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000) (aggregation limited when claims are separate and distinct under an insurance context)