Twitter LinkedIn Share this page Facebook RSS

Blogs

Product Liability Law BlogLegal updates, news, and commentary from the attorneys of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC

Eighth Circuit Weighs In on CAFA Removal, and the "Other Paper" Clause

July 26, 2013 | David Eisenberg

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") provides the federal courts with original jurisdiction to hear a class action if the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000. Whether this jurisdictional threshold has been met can sometimes be determined from the face of the state court complaint. At other times, the crossing of this threshold may only become apparent during the course of the lawsuit, when the defendant receives “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable”. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).In either instance, a defendant must act swiftly, filing a removal petition within 30 days after it first became apparent that the case was removable, lest it forfeit its right to remove.

Case law under CAFA has identified various types of “other paper” that justified removal during the course of a lawsuit, such as demand letters, a letter to an insurer valuing a claim, deposition testimony, expert reports, and proposed jury instructions.

In Hurst v. Nissan North America, Inc., - F.3d - , 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10957 (8th Cir. May 31, 2013), a case filed under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, with trial two weeks away, plaintiff filed a proposed jury instruction on the subject of punitive damages. Plaintiff had filed an original petition in Missouri state court, and two amended petitions, which did not include claims for punitive damages. Promptly upon receiving the proposed jury instruction, Nissan removed the case to federal court, asserting that the instruction was “other paper” from which it first could ascertain that the case was removable; and that the inclusion of the terms “motion” and “other paper” in the removal statute evinced congressional intent not to make formal amendments to a pleading a prerequisite to removal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446.

The Eighth Circuit disagreed, ruling that “§ 1446 merely sets forth the procedural requirements for removal to federal court; it does not inform the substantive question of whether the action is removable in the first place.” Citing Missouri state court case law that where punitive damages have not been pled in the state court petition, they are legally unrecoverable, the Eighth Circuit (affirming the U.S. District Court) held that because plaintiff had not yet amended his petition, it was “legally impossible” for him to recover punitive damages; hence, the $5 million CAFA damages threshold was not met.

The Court observed that Nissan “understandably felt ambushed” by counsel’s “peculiar if not questionable” eleventh-hour proffer of a punitive damages instruction, holding that on remand, “should punitive damages find their way into the case for consideration by the jury (whether by formal amendment to the pleadings or otherwise), immediate removal would be timely and almost certainly proper.”

The Hurst case highlights a class action defendant’s need to be vigilant as to whether plaintiffs, during the course of a case, have taken measures that move the case beyond the $5 million CAFA jurisdictional threshold; and the complexities associated with making that determination. And it illustrates that if a state trial court were to first allow punitive damages into a case during trial – e.g., by granting a motion by plaintiffs to conform their pleadings to evidence adduced at trial – the case would instantly become removable, even if both parties had put in all their evidence and the case was in the process of being submitted to the jury.

Subscribe
About Product Liability Law Blog

The BSCR Product Liability Blog examines significant developments, trends, and topics in product liability law of interest to individuals and product manufacturers, distributors and sellers. Learn more about the editor, David E. Eisenberg,  and our Product Liability practice.

DISCLAIMER

The Product Liability Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Product Liability Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Product Liability Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

 
×

For Important Legal Updates and Resources on the Coronavirus Click Here.