Louisiana Magistrate Interprets CAFA's "Local Controversy" Exception in Favor of Federal Jurisdiction

On February 27, 2006, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes found that the defendants properly removed, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a suit stemming from the alleged negligence of one defendant’s employee.  Robinson v. Cheetah Transp., 2006 WL 468820 (W.D. La.).  Plaintiffs contended that CAFA’s “Local Controversy” exception barred removal.  The magistrate judge disagreed, ruling that alhough the allegedly-negligent employee was an in-state defendant, the plaintiffs did not seek “substantial relief” from him;  the other defendants were national companies (not locally based) from which the plaintiffs hoped to capture the bulk of their damages.  – A.L.      

PA Federal Court Denies Motion to Remand Comcast Class Suit to State Court

On February 28, 2006, Adam Schwartz v. Comcast Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7499, Judge Thomas N. O'Neill denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the putative class action against Comcast back to PA state court. In providing a thorough review of CAFA’s three removal exceptions, O'Neill held that the plaintiffs could not, at a minimum, establish that at least 1/3 of the proposed class members were citizens of the original filing state. (1332(d)(3); 1332(d)(4)(A); 1332(d)(4)(B)). In doing so, O'Neill denied plaintiffs’ argument that establishing residential internet service evinces an intent to remain in a state permanently. Therefore, removal to federal court under CAFA was appropriate, and the motion to remand was denied.  - J.J.

This decision seems crazy on the facts -- this is a class action by residential service customers of a Pennsylvania corporation (Comcast), 98% of whom reside in Pennsylvania.  CAFA carves out federal jurisdiction over local controversies, denying jurisdiction where 2/3 of the class and the primary defendant are from the same state.  The court here escapes the obvious conclusion by holding that citizenship for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction is residence with an intent to stay and that although nearly 100% of the plaintiffs were resident, it could not be assumed that all had the intent to stay - this despite the fact that plaintiff's counsel demonstated that 86.5% of the class maintained Comcast service over a 5-month period.  While the plaintiff argued that "residence is an effective proxy for domicile," the Court "declined[d] to draw such a parallel."  Of course, by declining to draw that parallel, the Court is essentially concluding that residence is not a good proxy for domicile, which seems the more ridiculous conclusion.  This is especially so since the Court also held that it was the defendant's (removing party's) burden to demonstrate the presence of federal subject matter jurisdiciton.  -W.B.R.