Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Must Claims Severed From A CAFA Class Action Be Remanded To State Court? The Fifth Circuit Says No.

April 8, 2014 by Paul G. Williams

Following Hurricane Katrina, the State of Louisiana filed a class action to recover under homeowners’ insurance policies that the state had received by assignment through a disaster relief program.  The insurers successfully removed to federal court based on CAFA jurisdiction, and challenged the assignability of the homeowners’ contractual rights.  Finding that Louisiana law required a policy by policy examination of each anti-assignment clause, the district court ordered the individual claims severed from the collective action.  The state complied, filing 1,504 amended complaints.  However, the district court then found that these individual cases no longer enjoyed federal jurisdiction, and remanded them to state court.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit examined two competing principles: first, the principle that jurisdictional facts are determined at the time of removal, regardless of post-removal events; and second, that an action severed from the original case must have an independent jurisdictional basis.  The court found that the second principle only applied to claims that enjoyed supplemental jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction.  Examining the language in CAFA, specifically the use of the word “filed” in § 1332(d)(1)(B), the court further decided that CAFA was concerned with the status of an action when filed, not how it subsequently evolved.  The court also relied on the Senate Report in CAFA’s statutory history, which stated that a federal court’s jurisdiction, based on proper removal, could not be “ousted” by later events.  Because the State of Louisiana’s claims clearly possessed original federal jurisdiction as an integral part of the class action, the Fifth Circuit found no need for removal, and reversed the district court.

Louisiana v. Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co., Nos. 14-30071, 14-30072 (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

California District Court Holds That Named Plaintiff’s Lack Of Credibility On Key Issue Renders Him An Inadequate Class Representative; Denies Certification

Next Article »

Securities Class Actions Receive Increased Scrutiny: District Court Applies “Stringent Standards” Of Dukes And Comcast To Deny Certification
Avatar

About Paul G. Williams

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.