363 F. Supp. 3d 210
D.D.C.2019Background
- CAFA grants federal jurisdiction for class actions with minimal diversity, at least 100 class members, and > $5 million in controversy. (28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453)
- Section 1446(b) provides two 30-day removal windows: (1) within 30 days of receipt of a removable initial pleading; (2) within 30 days of receipt of a later paper that first shows removability. (28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), (3))
- Defendants attempted an initial removal under CAFA, then later conducted further investigation showing substantial growth in the Amazon Flex program (tripling of contractors and ~6x miles driven), which raised the amount in controversy above $5 million.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing successive removal was impermissible and that defendants had gamed timing to manufacture jurisdiction by delaying removal until damages accrued.
- The court considered whether removal outside the two 30-day windows is allowed based on a defendant's own information and whether successive removals are permissible when jurisdictional facts only become apparent later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1446(b)(1) and (b)(3) are the only times a defendant may remove | Those are the exclusive windows; permitting other removal incentivizes delay and gamesmanship | §1441 and §1446 do not forbid removal outside those windows based on a defendant’s own information, so long as no 30‑day deadline was missed | Court: A defendant may remove outside the two 30‑day windows based on its own information, provided it did not let a §1446 deadline lapse (followed Ninth, Second, Seventh Circuit reasoning) |
| Whether successive removal attempts are permissible where grounds become apparent later | Successive removal allowed only when new information—not tactical wait—makes removability apparent; continued accrual of damages alone shouldn’t permit successive removal | Successive removal permitted if jurisdictional facts became apparent later or did not exist earlier; defendant’s later investigation revealed new, dispositive facts | Court: Successive removal permissible here because post‑first‑removal investigation revealed substantial program growth and amount in controversy exceeded $5M only later |
Key Cases Cited
- Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 770 F.3d 67 (1st Cir.) (discussing CAFA jurisdictional thresholds and §1446 removal timing)
- Roth v. CHA Hollywood Medical Ctr., 720 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir.) (permitting removal based on defendant’s own information outside §1446 30‑day windows if deadlines not missed)
- Cutrone v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 749 F.3d 137 (2d Cir.) (agreeing §1446(b) does not make the two 30‑day periods exclusive)
- Walker v. Trailer Transit, Inc., 727 F.3d 819 (7th Cir.) (permitting removal outside the listed §1446 intervals under certain circumstances)
- Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41 (1st Cir.) (successive removal permissible when grounds for removal become apparent later)