Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Don’t Count Your Chickens – Or State Citizens for CAFA Exceptions – Before They Hatch

November 5, 2018 by Carlton Fields

The Ninth Circuit vacated a remand order implicating the local and home-state controversy exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction in a putative class action by former California resident employees of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) for state wage-and-hour law violations. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that “greater than two-thirds of proposed class members” were residents of California to invoke the exceptions.

Originally filed in California state court, KFC removed the case to federal court under CAFA. Plaintiff moved to remand under the local and home-state controversy exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction based on the premise that greater than two-thirds of proposed class members were California residents at the time of removal. KFC opposed plaintiff’s requests for jurisdictional discovery about putative class members’ last-known addresses and state citizenship and instead proposed to stipulate that “at least two-thirds” of the putative class members had last-known addresses in California, but plaintiff declined the offer. Although no formal stipulation was filed, the district court accepted the stipulation to obviate the need for jurisdictional discovery and then relied on that stipulation to grant KFC’s motion to remand based on the local and home-state controversy exceptions.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered whether plaintiff proved that “greater than two-thirds” of putative class members were California citizens where the district court relied on KFC’s stipulation and no other evidence regarding putative class members’ citizenships was presented. The opinion focused on what little “cushion” the stipulation provided over the statutorily required threshold to invoke the exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction. The court of appeals highlighted that the district court separately referenced the stipulated number as “at least two-thirds” or alternatively “at least 67%,” which the appellate court noted were technically different numbers. It noted that “at least two-thirds” would be facially insufficient, because “at least” is not “greater,” and that while 67 percent is technically “greater” than the 66.67 percent numerical meaning of “two-thirds, it is only “greater” by an extremely narrow margin.

More importantly, the Ninth Circuit faulted the district court’s reliance on the stipulation and lack of any other evidence as to citizenship because many individuals with last-known addresses in California may still not qualify as California citizens for purposes of the exceptions. For example, individuals with California residential addresses may not be California citizens if they were out-of-state students attending college in California. The same would be true if they permanently moved to another state or were not U.S. citizens. The court repeatedly emphasized the absence of any evidence regarding putative class members’ citizenship outside of the stipulation. Simply stated, the “stipulation was insufficient, and there was no other evidence to fill the gap.”

Thus, the court vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions for the lower court to permit plaintiff to renew her remand motion and to give her the opportunity to gather evidence via jurisdictional discovery on whether the requisite two-third of putative class members were California citizens.

King v. Great Am. Chicken Corp., Inc., No. 18-55911 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2018).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

No Injury, No Problem?: The First Circuit Weighs in on Certification Where Absent Class Members Lack Harm

Next Article »

The Bitter and the Sweet
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.