January 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 29

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Limits Class Action Plaintiffs’ Ability to Avoid Federal Court

In general, class action defendants want to litigate in federal court where the law governing class certification is more advantageous. Unsurprisingly, plaintiffs’ counsel have engaged in numerous tactics to avoid federal courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently put an end to one such practice. In Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, the Court unanimously ruled that putative class representatives cannot avoid federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) by declaring that the class will not seek or accept damages exceeding $5 million. See Case No. 11-1450, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2370 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2013). This decision will make it easier for defendants to remove large class actions from state to federal court.

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

CAFA, enacted in large part to prevent plaintiff forum-shopping, was meant to ensure class actions of a certain size and interstate nature would be heard in federal court. Pursuant to CAFA, federal courts have original jurisdiction over class actions when, among other things, the amount in controversy is over $5 million. To determine the amount in controversy, CAFA requires a district court to aggregate the value of all the individual claims of every putative class member.

Standard Fire Ins. v. Knowles

Knowles filed a state-court class action complaint in Miller County, Arkansas, alleging Standard Fire Insurance Company (Standard Fire) breached its homeowner insurance policies by not paying contractor’s retention fees. Knowles sought to defeat federal jurisdiction by declaring, pre-certification, that both, “Plaintiff and Class . . . will seek to recover total aggregate damages of less than five million dollars.”

Standard Fire removed the case to federal court under CAFA, and Knowles moved to remand. Although the federal district court found Standard Fire had met its burden of proof in showing the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, it nonetheless granted Knowles’ motion to remand based entirely on Knowles’ declaration. This remand was in accordance with Eighth Circuit precedent, as the plaintiff is “the master of the complaint.” Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding named plaintiffs can avoid federal jurisdiction by purporting to limit the damages of themselves and the putative claims to less than $5 million). After the Eighth Circuit denied permission to appeal, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether, in a putative class-action, a plaintiff could stymie federal jurisdiction simply by declaring the class he or she wishes to represent will not seek damages in excess of $5 million. The Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding the stipulation should have been ignored for purposes of determining jurisdiction. Indeed, the Court held Knowles’ declaration was binding on him but not on putative class members. This is because, “a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified.” Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. __ (2011). As jurisdiction is evaluated at the time the case was filed, and as Knowles was the only plaintiff at that time, the declaration conceding the amount in controversy was binding only as to Knowles and not as to absent class members. The Court pronounced “the stipulation at issue here can tie Knowles’ hands, but it does not resolve the amount-in-controversy question in light of his inability to bind the rest of the class.”

Implications

This ruling helps ensure class action plaintiffs cannot circumvent CAFA’s purpose simply by purporting to limit their own damages and the damages of class members they do not yet represent. This protection for absent class members is consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Smith v. Bayer Corp., that proposed class actions do not bind unnamed class members. This case further reinforces the Supreme Court’s trend of taking substance over form; looking beyond artful pleading tactics and analyzing the actual facts of the case at hand.

©2022 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLPNational Law Review, Volume III, Number 86
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Paul E. Benson, product and tort liability litigator, michael best law firm
Partner

For more than 25 years, Paul has specialized in product liability defense, class action defense, insurance litigation, and complex commercial litigation. He is particularly well known for his work in the class action and food and beverage sectors, where he is a nationally and locally recognized speaker and thought leader on product liability issues and regulatory trends.

In all of these areas, Paul has established a reputation for outstanding results. He has used motion practice to obtain summary judgment and/or dismissal in more than half of the cases he has defended in Wisconsin...

414-225-2757
Joseph Olson, Michael Best Law Firm, Employee Benefits Litigation Attorney
Partner

Joe is a trial attorney practicing primarily in the areas of class action defense, wage and hour litigation, employee benefits litigation, regulatory compliance, and complex commercial litigation. In this capacity, he:

  • Routinely helps clients deal with class actions suits across all subject matters

  • Handles all aspects of complex employment litigation including wage and hour suits arising under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state laws, plus benefits litigation...

414-277-3465
Benjamin Kaplan, Michael Best, product liability litigation, class action defense attorney,
Associate

Ben focuses on consumer protection, business tort, and class action litigation, providing careful analysis of complex issues and practical advice for resolving disputes and concerns. Ben has jury trial experience in both state and federal courts, as well as appellate experience in multiple federal appellate circuits.  

414-223-2504
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement