The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recent held that a plaintiff cannot force remand of a federal Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") removal under the home-state controversy exception when only a portion of the putative class met the two-third citizenship requirement.
A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion
A financial services company ("Defendant") allegedly recorded or monitored its telephone conversations with the plaintiff ("Plaintiff") without giving her notice. Plaintiff brought this action in California state court alleging (1) invasion of privacy in violation of California and Washington state law, (2) unlawful recording of telephone calls under California law; and (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
Plaintiff brought her first and third claims on behalf of a class of:
[a]ll persons who, while physically located or residing in California and Washington, made or received one or more telephone calls with [Defendant] during the four year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit (the "Class Period") and did not receive notice at the beginning of the telephone call that their telephone conversation may be recorded or monitored[.]
After Defendant removed this action to federal court, Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to California state court pursuant to CAFA's home-state controversy exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B).
As you may recall, CAFA vests federal courts with original diversity jurisdiction over class actions where (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) any class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) there are at least 100 class members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B).
However, CAFA also contains some exceptions which require the federal court to decline to exercise jurisdiction and remand the matter to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4).
Under the home-state controversy exception, a federal trial court must decline to exercise jurisdiction where "two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B).
To meet this burden, the moving party must provide "some facts in evidence from which the district court may make findings regarding class members' citizenship." Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 884 (9th Cir. 2013).
The magistrate judge ordered Defendant to produce a list of all putative California and Washington class members. Purportedly complying with the order, Defendant produced a list of over 152,000 persons who had recorded calls with Defendant between October 15, 2009 and May 6, 2016, and had a California or Washington mailing address.
Plaintiff's expert analyzed the list produced by Defendant and segregated a random sample of individuals included in that list. Defendant challenged the expert report because it did not limit the analysis to individuals who had telephone contact with Defendant before the class period ended on October 15, 2013.
The expert submitted a supplemental report purporting to be limited to individuals who made or received at least one call with Defendant during the defined class period. However, the report contained no evidence of individuals who were physically located in, but were not residents of, California or Washington when they made or received a phone call with Defendant.
Based on the expert report, the federal trial court found that at least two-thirds of class members were California citizens, and granted Plaintiff's motion to remand.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit had to determine whether two-thirds of class members are California citizens.
Initially, as the putative class was defined as all individuals who made or received a telephone call from Defendant "while physically located or residing in California and Washington," the Ninth Circuit determined that the class included individuals who were physically located in, but were not residents of, California or Washington when they made or received a call from Defendant (the "located in" subgroup).
During jurisdictional discovery, the trial court ordered Defendant to produce a list of putative California and Washington class members. In response, Defendant produced a document "which contains a list of [Defendant's] accounts listing California and Washington street addresses with respect to which account telephone calls (to and/or from) were recorded between October 15, 2009 and May 6, 2016." Plaintiff relied exclusively on its expert's analysis of this list to prove that two-third of all class members are California citizens.
However, the Ninth Circuit found that this list addressed only a portion of the class – those who were "residing in California and Washington" when they made or received a call from Defendant.
The Ninth Circuit noted that the list did not contain information about the size of the "located in" subgroup (i.e., individuals who were physically located in, but were not residents of, California or Washington when they made or received a call from Defendant), and Plaintiff never sought more information about the size of the class after she obtained this list, never appealed the magistrate judge's discovery order, and never argued that the list did not comply with the discovery order.
Because Plaintiff did not submit any evidence regarding the size of the "located in" subgroup, the Ninth Circuit could not determine the size of the entire class and whether two thirds class members are California citizens. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that the home-state controversy exception applied.
Plaintiff also argued that her class definition problem was a red herring because Defendant failed to identify a single non-California or Washington citizen whose telephone conversation it recorded. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument because Defendant did not have the burden to prove the inapplicability of a CAFA exception. Instead, Plaintiff as the party seeking remand was required to prove the applicability of a CAFA exception.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the trial court's order remanding the case to state court, and remanded the action to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ralph T. Wutscher
Maurice Wutscher LLP
The Loop Center Building
105 W. Madison Street, 18th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Direct: (312) 551-9320
Fax: (312) 284-4751
Mobile: (312) 493-0874
Email: rwutscher@MauriceWutscher.com
Admitted to practice law in Illinois
Alabama | California | Florida | Georgia | Illinois | Indiana | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | New Jersey | New York | Ohio | Pennsylvania | Texas | Washington, DC | Wisconsin
NOTICE: We do not send unsolicited emails. If you received this email in error, or if you wish to be removed from our update distribution list, please simply reply to this email and state your intention. Thank you.
Our updates and webinar presentations are available on the internet, in searchable format, at:
Financial Services Law Updates
and
The Consumer Financial Services Blog™
and
and
California Finance Law Developments
