August 8, 2020

Volume X, Number 221

August 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Ninth Circuit Says Reasonable Possibility of Punitive Damages Will Suffice for Amount-in-Controversy Under CAFA

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has joined several sister circuits in holding that courts should consider the amount of “possible” and not “probable” punitive damages in determining the $5 million amount-in-controversy for federal jurisdiction in class action cases.

The case of Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. presented a technical, but unresolved issue for the court – determining the proper burden when the defendant removes a case from state court based on Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) jurisdiction and relies on punitive damages to establish the $5 million CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement.

The plaintiff filed a putative class action suit in state court, asserting a number of causes of action related to Harley-Davidson’s pricing and advertising for motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson removed the case to federal district court under CAFA, arguing that the required $5 million amount-in-controversy was met with an estimated $2.16 million in compensatory damages and the same amount in punitive damages (using a 1:1 punitive/compensatory damages ratio), and $1.08 million in attorney’s fees. In support of its removal, Harley-Davidson cited prior cases involving the same causes of action in which the juries awarded punitive damages based on the same or higher punitive/compensatory damages ratios.

The plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court, challenging Harley-Davidson’s punitive damages estimate. The district court granted the motion to remand.  Though it acknowledged that Harley-Davidson had cited several cases in which the jury had awarded punitive damages on a least a 1:1 ratio, it determined that Harley-Davidson did not explain how those cases were analogous. The district court held that it was not merely enough to cite cases involving the same cause of action; rather, the court held that a defendant has the burden of comparing and analogizing the underlying factual allegations to show that the punitive damages ratio is permissible.

The Ninth Circuit, however, disagreed.  In its July 14 opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA, the defendant need only show a reasonable possibility that the defendant may be liable for the proffered punitive damages amount.  The Ninth Circuit ruled that, by requiring Harley-Davidson to show factual similarities to the other cases, the district court improperly asked Harley-Davidson to establish the likelihood that the plaintiff would actually prevail on the claim. Instead, the Ninth Circuit explained that it is sufficient for a defendant to cite a case or cases based on the same or similar cause of action in which the court awarded punitive damages based on a similar damages ratio.

In so holding, the Ninth Circuit joined the Third, Fifth, Eighth, Seventh, and Tenth circuits, which have adopted similar standards for determining whether the amount-in-controversy is met with punitive damages under CAFA.

The court separately held that the district court should not have considered Harley-Davidson’s statute of limitations defense to reduce the potential damages. The court explained that, a plaintiff “cannot smuggle in merits-based arguments into the jurisdictional inquiry.”

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 211


About this Author

Veronica Torrejón Labor & Employment Lawyer Hunton Andrews Kurth Law Firm

Veronica’s litigation practice focuses on complex employment litigation, including defending employers against allegations of breach of employment and separation agreements, failure to pay bonus and wrongful termination. 

Prior to joining the firm, Veronica worked at a prominent national law firm where she handled an array of complex commercial disputes.

Prior to law school, Veronica was a journalist at The Morning Call (Allentown, PA) where she primarily covered the healthcare industry. She also wrote for the Los...

213 532 2021
Ryan A. Glasgow Employment Lawyer Hunton AK

Ryan represents employers and executives in labor matters and complex employment litigation and provides strategic labor and employment advice.

Ryan’s labor and employment litigation experience is both broad and deep, and he is particularly skilled in defending employers against wage and hour class and collective actions. Ryan has been involved in over thirty-five of these cases, along with numerous other single plaintiff wage and hour matters, throughout the country. He has achieved success for his clients in many of these cases, including on the merits, in defeating class certification, and/or in successfully challenging plaintiffs’ damages expert/calculations.

Ryan’s litigation experience also includes whistleblower claims, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class actions, ERISA actions, H-2B and J-1 immigration litigation, single- and multi-plaintiff discrimination and harassment litigation, and prosecution and defense of breach of contract and restrictive covenant litigation.

Ryan also routinely represents management in complex traditional labor matters in union elections, collective bargaining, strike contingency planning and execution, unfair labor practice proceedings, and arbitrations. Ryan has represented clients in dozens of union elections and has negotiated numerous collective bargaining agreements covering thousands of employees.

Ryan is admitted to practice in the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the US District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia and the District of Colorado. He has litigated cases in the state and federal courts of Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Ryan also provides strategic advice to clients on a full range of labor and employment issues. He advises clients in the retail, hospitality, coal and other natural resources, power, health care, food processing, manufacturing, consumer products, and service industries.

804 788 8791 direct