May 21, 2022

Volume XII, Number 141

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 20, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 19, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 18, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

New York Court Rejects Post-Removal Complaint Amendment as Effort to Defeat Diversity

Illustrating a court’s ability to limit forum shopping in a class action, a federal judge in New York denied a motion to remand in a suit brought against Northrop Grumman Corporation over alleged hazardous waste pollution. See Romano v. Northrop Grumman Corp, No. 16-cv-5760 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017). Current and former Nassau County residents filed their putative class action in 2016 in Nassau County Supreme Court alleging injury from the release of hazardous substances. Northrop Grumman removed the suit to federal court asserting, among other things federal jurisdictional hooks, Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) jurisdiction. Subsequent to removal, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add the Town of Oyster Bay as a Defendant, which would have destroyed the diversity necessary for CAFA jurisdiction.

Defendant operated a 600+ acre site in Bethpage, New York, where it manufactured weapons, aircraft, and satellites for almost six decades. Plaintiffs allege the company used the site to dispose of wastes containing chromium, polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”), and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”). The proposed class includes thousands of nearby residents and property owners allegedly injured by these contaminants.

Although Defendant asserted three bases for federal jurisdiction, the Eastern District of New York limited its analysis to CAFA jurisdiction. CAFA provides for federal jurisdiction in cases involving 100 or more class members, where the aggregate claim exceeds $5 million, and diversity exists. Complete diversity is not required, but CAFA has a “local controversy” exception for cases in which at least two-thirds of the class members are residents of the forum state, at least one significant defendant is a resident of the state the case was filed in, the principal injuries occurred in that state, and no other similar class action was brought in the previous three years. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). Plaintiffs asserted that because of the addition of the Town of Oyster Bay, their suit should be remanded to state court under the local controversy exception, as there was now a defendant with New York citizenship. The court rejected this argument and found that after Defendant removed the suit to federal court plaintiffs could not amend the complaint to defeat federal jurisdiction. The court noted that Plaintiffs’ actions “[g]ave rise to a strong suggestion of forum shopping.”

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume VIII, Number 131
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. brings a blend of long years of experience, the perspective of former senior government officials, and a depth of knowledge of federal and state laws and regulations to all of its environmental work. Our clients demand that we provide the highest quality of environmental representation to solve their environmental problems worldwide. We continue to meet that challenge today, as we have for over 30 years.

202-789-6019
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement