33 F.4th 214
5th Cir.2022Background:
- Turner sued GoAuto in Louisiana state court after his car was totaled, alleging underpayment of policy benefits.
- Turner amended to a class action and later (pre-removal) filed an amended complaint defining the class as "all citizens of Louisiana" insured by GoAuto who received reduced total-loss valuations.
- Turner stipulated there were over 3,000 class members with minimum recovery > $5,000 each; GoAuto removed the case to federal court under CAFA.
- The Louisiana court accepted Turner’s amended complaint before removal; GoAuto argued removal was proper based on diversity and other facts.
- The district court remanded for lack of CAFA minimal diversity; the Fifth Circuit affirmed because the operative complaint limited the class to Louisiana citizens and GoAuto is a Louisiana citizen.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA minimal diversity exists when class is defined as "citizens of Louisiana" | Turner: class limited to LA citizens; no minimal diversity | GoAuto: some class members are non-LA citizens or the operative complaint shouldn't control | Held: No minimal diversity; operative complaint controls and class is state-only, so remand affirmed |
| Whether the federal court may disregard the state court's pre-removal acceptance of the amended complaint | Turner: State-court acceptance of amendment governs the complaint at removal | GoAuto: Federal courts may look beyond state-court rulings and prior pleadings | Held: Federal courts must respect state-court procedural rulings made before removal and evaluate the complaint as it existed at removal |
| Whether Standard Fire v. Knowles allows federal courts to reexamine state-court procedural rulings pre-removal | Turner: Knowles is limited to amount-in-controversy stipulations, not state procedural decisions | GoAuto: Knowles permits looking beyond pleading language to assess removability | Held: Knowles does not authorize disregarding state-court procedural rulings; it addresses aggregating claims/amount in controversy only |
| Whether CAFA or Fifth Circuit law bars a class defined exclusively by state citizenship | Turner: Such a class definition is permissible | GoAuto: Circuit or statutory law should bar state-only class definitions or prevent removal | Held: Nothing in CAFA or binding Fifth Circuit law bars a state-resident-only class; sister circuits reach same conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonin v. Sabine River Auth. of La., 961 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2020) (evaluate removal based on the state-court complaint as of the time of removal)
- Madison v. ADT, L.L.C., 11 F.4th 325 (5th Cir. 2021) (CAFA requires only minimal diversity: at least one class member diverse from defendant)
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019) (definition of minimal diversity under CAFA)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013) (district courts may look beyond nonbinding stipulations for amount in controversy)
- Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 1995) (remand evaluated on state complaint at removal)
- Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2011) (class membership determined by complaint's class definition and citizenship)
- Life of the S. Ins. Co. v. Carzell, 851 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2017) (sister-circuit: CAFA does not bar state-resident-only class definitions)
- Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2008) (same conclusion as Carzell regarding CAFA and resident-only classes)