Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

KEELING v. ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY (September 26, 2011)

Esurance Insurance Company has issued over 50,000 automobile insurance policies with uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. It has collected more than $600,000 in premiums and paid no claims. A class of policyholders brought suit for fraud against Esurance, alleging that the uninsured/underinsured coverage was worthless given the policy language. Esurance removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Chief Judge Herndon (S.D. Ill.) concluded that the amount in controversy included the $600,000 in premiums, what little amount it would cost to amend the policy form as requested by the class, and punitive damages. Concluding that a $4.4 million punitive damage award was "legally impossible," he remanded the class action to state court on the ground that it did not meet the $5 million amount in controversy threshold. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Cudahy and Kanne reversed and remanded. The Court noted that the district court stated the correct "legally impossible" standard but applied it improperly. First, the value of the injunctive relief is not simply the cost of changing a form. Esurance currently reports a $125,000 annual profit on the challenged coverage. Eliminating the coverage (and the profit) would cost Esurance $1.5 million (the present value of $125,000 for 20 years). Therefore, the question becomes whether it is "legally impossible" for the plaintiffs to be awarded $3 million in punitive damages. A $3 million punitive damage award, compared to the $600,000 in actual class injury, would only be a multiplier of five. Illinois courts have affirmed punitive damage awards with higher multipliers. The Supreme Court has suggested that such a multiplier would not be unconstitutional. Although such an award might be improbable, the Court concluded that it was not "legally impossible" and that the amount in controversy requirement was met.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 RODAS v. SEIDLIN (August 31, 2011)

The Crusaders Central Clinic Association is a federally funded community health center in Rockford, Illinois that serves an underserved population. Dr. William Baxter is one of the Clinic's physicians. The Clinic also contracted with the University of Illinois College of Medicine. For a fixed annual fee, the College provided backup services. When College physicians provided services, the Clinic was authorized to collect fees from its patients. One of Dr. Baxter's patients was Gloria Rodas. In the early morning of August 2, 2001, Rodas went into labor. Dr. Baxter met her at the hospital and assumed her care. The delivery turned problematic and Dr. Baxter sought the assistance of two College physicians. They eventually delivered the baby by Cesarean section, but she died within weeks. One of the College physicians prepared a bill for her services rendered and transmitted it to the Clinic -- the other physician did not. Rodas filed a medical malpractice suit in 2003. Because of the Clinic's federal funding, it and Dr. Baxter were considered to have federal status. Rodas’ suit was against the United States in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States removed and substituted itself as defendant. Since Rodas had not exhausted administrative remedies, she dismissed her claims against the United States The case was remanded to state court. Rodas exhausted her administrative remedies and then amended her state court complaint, adding the United States. The United States again removed. The two College physicians moved for summary judgment under the Illinois Good Samaritan Act. Under the Act, a physician who provides emergency care in good faith without a fee is not liable for malpractice. Judge Kapala (N.D. Ill.) agreed and granted summary judgment to the physicians. After that judgment was entered, the United States moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction. The district court denied that motion. Rodas appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the jurisdictional issue. Under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, a federal court lacks jurisdiction of a suit removed from state court if the state court had no jurisdiction. This is true even if the suit could have been brought originally in the federal court. The Court looked at the propriety of the removal itself. Under § 1442, the federal officer removal statute, a case "commenced" in state court against the United States may be removed. The United States (as amicus) argues that the case was not commenced against it since it was not an originally named defendant. The Court rejected that argument, relying on the plain language of the statute and congressional intent. Removal was proper if the United States was named in an amended pleading, which it was. Therefore, removal under § 1441 was proper and the derivative jurisdiction doctrine would seem to lead to the conclusion that jurisdiction does not exist. The Court looked to the Supreme Court decisions in Grubbs and Caterpillar, in which the Court distinguished between procedural defects and true jurisdictional defects. In those cases, improper removals were not discovered until after judgment was entered. In both cases, the Supreme Court concluded that jurisdiction was present in cases where procedural defects were corrected before judgment. The Court concluded that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine was not an essential ingredient of subject matter jurisdiction but was more akin to a procedural defect. That the state court lacked jurisdiction does not, therefore, defeat the federal court’s jurisdiction.
          The Court turned to the merits and the interpretation of the Illinois Good Samaritan Act. The Court first rejected the defendants' argument that, because they occupy salaried positions and received no compensation from Rodas, neither received a fee. Relying on the plain language of the statute and the dictionary, the Court concluded that services can be rendered for a fee even if the rendering physician receives no compensation directly from that fee. That concluded the matter with respect to the physician who actually submitted the paperwork to the Clinic for processing the fee. The other physician never submitted the paperwork. There was no fee at all. But the physician’s general practice was to complete the paperwork. In fact, he testified that he did not recall ever providing services without preparing the fee paperwork. The Court concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether he acted in good faith.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CLEARY v. PHILIP MORRIS INC. (August 25, 2011)

A class-action complaint brought against Philip Morris in 1998, and later amended, sought disgorgement of profits under an unjust enrichment theory, alleging that Philip Morris concealed facts about the dangers of cigarettes in its marketing and advertising. The complaint alleged three classes: an "addiction" class consisting of Illinois residents who purchased cigarettes between 1953 in 1965, a "youth marketing" class consisting of Illinois residents who first purchased cigarettes as minors, and a "lights" class consisting of Illinois residents who purchased Marlboro Lights. The class plaintiffs withdrew the "lights" class allegations because of another similar pending case. That "lights" case was ultimately unsuccessful in Illinois state court but a 2008 United States Supreme Court case breathed new life into the theory. The class plaintiffs therefore amended their complaint again, reinserting a "lights" class claim. The amended complaint added as defendants other companies who manufactured light cigarettes, including Lorillard Tobacco Company, and also added allegations regarding other brands of light cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris. Lorillard removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The district court rejected plaintiffs request to remand on the grounds that the new "lights" claim did not relate back to the original complaint, then dismissed Lorillard on statute of limitations grounds, and then again rejected a request to remand on the ground that Lorillard, the reason for the removal, was no longer a defendant. Later, the district court dismissed as time-barred all claims against the other non-Philip Morris defendants and limited the claims against Phillip Morris to the original Marlboro Lights claims. Ultimately, Judge Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the unjust enrichment claims as a matter of law. The class appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Cudahy, Manion, and Hamilton affirmed. Before turning to the merits of the unjust enrichment claim, the Court briefly addressed the district court's refusal to remand after the Lorillard dismissal and its limitation of the "lights" claim to Marlboro Lights. With respect to the former, the Court stated that jurisdiction under CAFA is determined at the time of removal. Therefore, Lorillard's dismissal after removal did not affect the court's jurisdiction. With respect to the latter, the Court noted that an amendment relates back to an earlier complaint only when it arises out of the same occurrence. Here, the expansion of the allegations to include other Phillip Morris light cigarette brands would add additional class members and encompass numerous additional transactions. The additional allegations, therefore, do not arise out of the same occurrence and do not relate back. Turning to the unjust enrichment allegations, the Court recognized some tension in Illinois law as to whether unjust enrichment is an independent cause of action or must be tied to a separate claim. It ultimately decided that it did not have to resolve the tension, given its conclusion that the class allegations did not state a cause of action. An unjust enrichment claim must allege defendant's unjust retention of a benefit to the plaintiffs detriment and that the retention was unjust. The only detriment plaintiffs allege, however, is a violation of their right to be informed of the actual dangers and risks inherent in cigarettes. Under plaintiffs' theory, the class would include consumers for whom that alleged violation was not a detriment -- the consumers who would have acted no differently had they known the truth. Without any allegations of harm or that they would have acted differently, the class allegations cannot support a claim of unjust enrichment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MICROMETL CORP. v. TRANZACT TECHNOLOGIES (August 24, 2011)

Micrometl and Tranzact were parties to a services agreement that went sour. Micrometl brought suit in state court, alleging that Tranzact had over-billed it by more than $100,000. Tranzact removed the case to federal court. In discovery, Tranzact learned that Micrometl had received funds from third parties that reduced Tranzact's liability to less than $40,000. It also learned that Micrometl received those funds prior to the time it filed suit. Although Tranzact knew that this information brought diversity jurisdiction into question because of the amount in controversy requirement, it did nothing. Discovery closed five months later and the parties participated in a settlement conference five months after that. It was only after the unsuccessful settlement conference that Tranzact moved to remand the case to state court. Magistrate Judge Nolan (N.D. Ill.) concluded that the plaintiff could not meet the amount in controversy requirement and remanded the case to state court. She denied, however, Tranzact's motions for fees and costs. Transact appeals from the order denying fees.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Wood, and Tinder affirmed. The Court noted that the removal statute allows a district court to award fees and costs when a case is improperly removed. Usually, it is a plaintiff who seeks a fee award against a defend who improperly removed. Here, it is the defendant seeking fees. Although the Court noted the unusual situation, it concluded that there is no barrier to awarding fees to a defendant under the statute. The Court also concluded, however, that the district court did not err in refusing to award fees. The district court correctly concluded that Micrometl knew or should have known that it could not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement and should have alerted the court at the time of the removal petition. Equally troubling to the district court, however, was Tranzact's conduct. It waited 10 months after it discovered the truth to alert the district court to the situation. The Court rejected Tranzact’s nonsensical argument that it could not alert the court because of an order to participate in mediation. It also rejected the argument that the fact that a case can be remanded "any time" means that its delay in informing the court should not be considered. Tranzact's conduct wasted judicial resources and imposed costs on both parties. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award fees under § 1447(c). Tranzact also sought fees under § 1927. But § 1927 is a sanctions statute that requires a finding of bad faith. The Court deferred to the magistrate judge's finding of no bad-faith. It pointed out, for example, that Micrometl did not exaggerate its damages in order to get into federal court. It originally filed in state court and had no jurisdictional reason to overstate its damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

TOWNSQUARE MEDIA v. BRILL (July 21, 2011)

In 2002, creditors of several of Alan Brill's media companies forced them into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court ordered the companies' radio stations sold. Regent Communications, Inc. was the successful bidder at the sale, although Brill also bid. After several years passed, Brill filed a 111-page complaint in Indiana state court against Regent and a number of other defendants, alleging both tort and contract claims based on state law. The gist of Brill's claim against Regent is that Regent used information obtained from Brill but subject to a confidentiality agreement to outbid Brill for the radio stations. Several of the defendants, creditors in the original bankruptcy case, removed the case to the bankruptcy court in the Southern District of Indiana. Before the bankruptcy court ruled, Brill filed an amended complaint in which Regent was the only defendant and the confidentiality agreement violations were the only claims. The bankruptcy court concluded that the amended complaint was not related to the bankruptcy case. The court therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the case and remanded it to the Indiana state court. Chief Judge Young (S.D. Ind.) affirmed the remand order. Regent appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Kanne, and Rovner dismissed the appeal. The first question for the Court was whether the order was appealable. Under the Supreme Court's reading of § 1447 (the Seventh Circuit has held that the bankruptcy removal section is identical to § 1447), a case remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable. Although the district court said it lacked jurisdiction, the Court disagreed. When the case was removed, the original creditors were still defendants and the case was challenging the confirmation of the plan. The case was therefore related to the bankruptcy case and within the court's jurisdiction. The Court then assumed, without deciding, that the bankruptcy court also acquired supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The resolution of the federal claim (here by the filing of an amended complaint) did not eliminate the court's jurisdiction over the state law claims. It did create a situation in which the court had the discretion, depending on the number of factors, to keep or remand the claims. Under Carlsbad Technology, the remand of such state law claims is not a remand for lack of jurisdiction but simply a decision to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction. That would normally mean that the order is reviewable under § 1447. But that is not what happened in the bankruptcy court. Regent tried to keep the case in federal court on the ground that even the amended complaint's claims were within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction -- and that argument was properly rejected by the lower courts. The Court concluded that it could review the order only if it could properly characterize the lower courts' orders as declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, despite the words used. The bankruptcy court was very clear in its order that the dismissal was for want of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded in Kircher that an order unmistakably premised on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even if clearly wrong, is not reviewable. The Court concluded that that was the case here, particularly since neither the courts nor Regent ever argued supplemental jurisdiction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ABM SECURITY SERVICES v. DAVIS (June 16, 2011)

ABM Security Services’ employees filed a class action against the company in Illinois state court. The complaint alleged that ABM violated the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by not compensating its employees for time worked before and after their shifts. ABM filed a notice of removal in which it calculated the amount in controversy to be in excess of $10 million. It reached that amount by multiplying minutes per day of alleged unpaid time by number of employees by average wage. It then added the 2% statutory penalty. It also noted that that number could increase by $1.5 million if overtime calculations were used. Judge Shadur N.D. Ill.) asked ABM to recalculate the number, excluding employees who opted into a California class-action. ABM filed an amended notice with calculations of approximately $5.2 million (straight time) and $7.8 million (overtime). The court asked for still additional information and instructed ABM to exclude vacation and sick days. ABM's new number was approximately $5.2 million. The court again disagreed, particularly with the penalty calculation. It did its own calculation and came up with a number approximately $5,000 short of the $5 million amount in controversy requirement. Additionally, the court concluded that class counsel could not have done $5,000 worth of legal work to make up that deficit. He remanded the case to state court. ABM petitions for permission to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne, and Sykes granted the petition, reversed, and remanded. The Court stated the standard -- once the removing party offers a plausible explanation for reaching the $5 million threshold, the case should remain in federal court unless that recovery amount is legally impossible. Here, the Court found that ABM's calculations were reasonable and also found its interpretation of the statutory penalty reasonable. The district court did not establish that the recovery was legally impossible. It should not have remanded. Alternatively, the Court also criticized the district court's conclusion that attorneys’ fees incurred by plaintiffs up to the time of removal could not bridge the $5,000 gap.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WALTON v. BAYER CORPORATION (May 23, 2011)

Cathy Walton alleges that she suffered serious injuries as a result of taking a prescription drug manufactured by a Bayer Corporation affiliate and sold at a pharmacy operated by Niemann Foods. She brought suit against Bayer and Niemann in Illinois state court, alleging that the two defendants failed to warn of the drug's serious side effects. Although Niemann is an Illinois citizen, Bayer removed the case to federal court on the grounds that Niemann was improperly joined. Chief Judge Herndon (S.D. Ill.) denied Walton's request to remand and dismissed Niemann, with prejudice. Walton abandoned prosecution of the suit after that order. The court later dismissed the suit with prejudice when Walton refused to comply with a discovery order. Walton appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Posner, and Manion affirmed. The Court first confirmed its own appellate jurisdiction, notwithstanding Bayer's argument that Walton should not be allowed to turn a non-appealable interlocutory order into an appealable order by abandoning the case. The Court distinguished the cases Bayer cited and concluded that there was nothing wrong with her tactic. She should be allowed to risk her claim's success on being right about jurisdiction. The Court next turned to the question of the district court's jurisdiction. It rejected Walton’s first argument that the complaint did not meet jurisdictional amount. Her alleged injuries are quite serious and suggest that she is seeking at least the jurisdictional amount -- and she has not exercised her absolute ability to defeat removal by committing to accept no more than the jurisdictional amount. The Court also rejected her argument that a minor procedural defect precluded federal jurisdiction. The Court turned to her principal argument -- lack of complete diversity. Walton argued both that Niemann was a proper defendant and that, if it was not, fraudulent joinder's "common defense" exception applied. With respect to the first of those arguments, the Court looked to the "learned intermediary" doctrine, under which one's prescribing physician is principally responsible for warning a patient of a drug's side effects and a manufacturer is excused from any obligation to warn. Under Illinois law, a pharmacy like Niemann is only obligated to warn a customer of risks that are known to it but possibly unknown to the prescribing physician (for example, potential interactions with other prescriptions dispensed by the pharmacy). Since Walton did not allege that Niemann had such knowledge, Niemann had no obligation to warn and was properly dismissed. With respect to Walton's second argument, the Court turned to the common defense exception to fraudulent joinder. Under that doctrine, if a plaintiff makes identical claims against both the diverse and non-diverse defendants, a fraudulent joinder argument is really an attack on the merits of the entire case. That attack must be resolved in the state court. If, therefore, Bayer and Niemann both have the same learned intermediary defense, it must be resolved in state court. That is not the case, however. Walton alleges that Bayer concealed the drug's side effects, even from physicians. The two defendants therefore do not share a common defense, the exception to fraudulent joinder does not apply, and the district court properly dismissed Niemann. As an aside, the Court noted that a Walton victory based on the common defense exception in the appellate court would have resulted in a remand, only for Walton to lose in state court. The doctrine of judicial estoppel would not allow Walton to argue in the appellate court that her claims against Bayer and Niemann were identical and then argue in state court that her claim against Bayer was different.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BLOMBERG v. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL (April 14, 2011)

Employees of Service Corporation International brought a class action in Illinois state court against their employer, alleging that it failed to properly compensate them for hours worked, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. SCI removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Coleman (N.D. Ill.) remanded the case to state court on the grounds that SCI failed to establish the $5 million minimum amount in controversy required by CAFA. SCI petitions for permission to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood, and Hamilton granted the petition and reversed and remanded. When one party challenges CAFA’s amount in controversy requirement, the other party must establish that fact by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court appreciated the difficulty a party has in establishing that fact when the plaintiff controls many of the facts and reveals little information about the scope of its claim. Here, SCI did provide some support for this jurisdictional fact. It cited deposition testimony in a similar case against it in another state regarding the number of allegedly unpaid hours. If the Illinois class members had similar allegedly unpaid hours, the threshold would be met. It also cited a Virginia case against it by significantly fewer class members wherein the class itself asserted CAFA jurisdiction. The Court found this evidence plausible and sufficient to support SCI's good faith estimate of the amount in controversy requirement. Unless it is legally impossible for them to recover $5 million, which the plaintiffs have not even argued, removal was appropriate.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BACK DOCTORS LTD. V. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. (April 1, 2011)

Back Doctors Ltd., a medical service provider, believed that Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co. used software that resulted in medical providers being underpaid for their services. Back Doctors filed suit in Illinois state court, on behalf of a class, alleging that Metropolitan breached its contracts with its insurers and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The suit asks for $2.9 million in damages. Metropolitan removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Back Doctors moved to remand on the ground that their $2.9 million demand did not meet CAFA’s $5 million amount in controversy requirement. Judge Reagan (S.D. Ill.) agreed, stating that removal is disfavored and that Metropolitan had not demonstrated a "reasonable probability" that the $5 million threshold had been met. Metropolitan petitioned to appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Evans granted the petition, vacated the remand order, and remanded. The Court first noted that the Supreme Court, in St. Paul Mercury, established the “amount in controversy” test in 1938 -- the threshold is met unless plaintiff cannot possibly recover the jurisdictional minimum. The Court then recited some of the history of the Circuit’s "reasonable probability" test in reference to the amount in controversy. It arose in 1993 in Shaw in reference to a plaintiff's burden to prove jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence. But the amount in controversy is not a jurisdictional fact, like where a company is incorporated or headquartered. After several years of misapplication, the Court tried to clarify the phrase in 2005 in Brill. When that failed, the Court eliminated the phrase entirely in 2006 in Sadowski. The Court even circulated the Sadowski opinion pursuant to Circuit Rule 40(e) so that it had the effect of an en banc decision. Unfortunately, there is obviously still some confusion. Having established the correct test, the Court asked whether a $5 million recovery was possible. It concluded that it was because of the possibility of punitive damages. Back Doctors, although it has not specifically asked for punitive damages, may still recover them. They have not disavowed them, they have cited no Illinois case disallowing punitive damage coverage when it is not pleaded, and they have a fiduciary duty to other class members to maximize the class recovery. The Court added that Illinois does have a procedure whereby a plaintiff can cap its relief. Back Doctors has not taking advantage of the procedure. Since a $5 million recovery is possible, removal was appropriate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

KORAL v. BOEING COMPANY (January 4, 2011)

An Boeing airplane crashed in the Netherlands in 2009. One hundred seventeen plaintiffs have filed suit in Illinois state court in 29 separate actions. Boeing filed motions to dismiss the state court actions on the basis of forum non conveniens, citing the considerable inconvenience of transporting its witnesses from out-of-state in 29 different trials. In response, the plaintiffs pointed out that the standard practice in aviation crash cases is to establish liability by trying a small number of exemplar cases, thereby significantly reducing the inconvenience. Boeing used that response to remove all the state court cases to federal court, arguing that plaintiffs' comment was a proposal for a joint trial and thus qualified the case as a "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act. Judges Shadur, Guzman, Conlon, Coleman, and St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) each granted motions to remand. Boeing petitions for an appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Wood, and Tinder granted the petition and affirmed the remands. Under Rule 1332, a "mass action” is a civil action in which the claims of 100 or more people are "proposed to be tried jointly," except when the proposal is by a defendant. So Boeing’s “proposal cannot be a Rule 1332 proposal. Here, the only “proposal” is plaintiffs' predictions about what might happen as the case progresses. That falls short of a Rule 1332 proposal – Boeing’s removal was therefore premature. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ANDERSON v. AON CORP. (July 26, 2010)

Robert Anderson sold his California insurance brokerage firm to Aon Corporation in 1997. He received approximately 95,000 shares of Aon stock when it was trading around $69 per share. Within five years, its share price had fallen to approximately $14. Anderson brought suit in state court in California, his state of residency, and alleged only violations of California securities law. He alleged that the fall in share price was due to the company’s mismanagement, that the mismanagement was fraudulently concealed until 2002, and that he would have sold the shares earlier absent the concealment. Aon removed on diversity grounds. Anderson shortly thereafter dismissed without prejudice, anticipating that the federal court was going to transfer the case to Illinois under § 1404(a). He refiled, again in California state court, and added two California citizen defendants (to prevent diversity). Curiously, this time he included a federal claim (RICO) in his complaint. Aon removed on federal question grounds and also asserted that the additional defendants were fraudulently joined. Anderson dismissed his federal claim and asked that the case be remanded. Instead, the California district court transferred the case to Illinois. Judge Manning (N.D. Ill.) applied Illinois law and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Anderson appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Tinder reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed its appellate jurisdiction, since one of Anderson's arguments was that the California federal court should have remanded to state court, instead of transferring, once he dismissed his RICO claim. The Court recognized that some circuits have held that appellate review in cases such as this is split between the transferor court's circuit and the transferee court's circuit -- but it concluded otherwise. A § 1404(a) transfer is not separately reviewable. The only review comes after a final decision when all rulings of the Illinois court (even if to apply law of the case) are reviewed. On the merits of the transfer decision, the Court concluded that the lower court acted appropriately. There was jurisdiction when the suit was filed because of the federal claim and there was supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under § 1367(a). Once the federal claim was dismissed, the district court had discretion to either remand or to assert its supplemental jurisdiction over the state court claims until resolution. The Court cited Andersen's legal maneuvering as one reason the court prudently kept (and transferred) the case. On the substantive merits of the claim, however, the Court found error. The transfer of the case should not affect the applicable law. Here, the court should have applied the California choice-of-law rules to determine which state's substantive law applied. The California choice-of-law rule has three parts: first, it asks whether the different states' laws are different; second (if they are different), it examines each states' interest to decide whether a true conflict exists; and third (if there is a true conflict), it applies the law of the state whose interests would be most impaired by the adoption of the other state's law. The Court noted that the substantive law at issue here was the viability of a "holder action." A holder action is a private action for damages by an investor who claims that he continued to hold the stock, when he would otherwise have sold, because of the deceit of the defendant. The Supreme Court, in Blue Chip Stamps, concluded that holder actions are not viable under federal securities laws. However, they are viable under California securities laws. The Illinois Supreme Court has not spoken, although Illinois generally follows federal law in this area. The Court therefore concluded that there was a true conflict under the choice of law rules in the California. It also concluded that the third prong of the test favored California in that California has affirmatively accepted the viability of a holder action and Illinois has not spoken on the issue. Anderson should thus be allowed to proceed with the action. The Court concluded by noting a number of significant obstacles in Anderson's path but left them to be addressed, in the first instance, by the district court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BEZICH (June 25, 2010)

Peter Bezich is a Lincoln National Life Insurance Company policyholder. He has a variable life policy, under which he can allocate funds to either a General Account or a Separate Account. The General Account accumulates premium payments while the Separate Account is an investment account registered with the SEC. Each month, Lincoln National deducts cost-of-insurance charges from a policyholder's account proportionately to the amounts invested in each of the two accounts. Bezich brought a class action in Indiana state court, alleging that Lincoln National breached the terms of the policy in the way it calculated the cost-of-insurance charges. Lincoln National removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Van Bokkelen (N.D. Ind.) remanded the case to state court, relying on the CAFA exception for cases that solely involve claims relating to rights and obligations created by any “security.” Lincoln National petitioned for leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner, and Wood dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. Although the Court was first obliged to look at its appellate jurisdiction, it noted that the language governing its appellate jurisdiction was identical to the language creating the removal exception relied on by the district court. The core question for both is whether the policy is a "security" as defined by the Securities Act of 1933. Although the Court conceded there was authority in different contexts supporting Lincoln National's desire to look at the two component parts of the policy (and find one a security and one not), the Court rejected the applicability of those cases. It cited its agreement with the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Herndon that treated a variable life policy as a "security" under the Securities Litigation Uniformed Standards Act of 1998. Here, the claims of the class concern a promise made by Lincoln National that applied whether a policyholder's funds were in the General or Separate Account. The policy treated as a whole meets the definition of "security" -- the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ANDERSON v. BAYER CORP. (June 22, 2010)

Bayer Corporation manufactured a prescription medication called Trasylol. A lawyer in St. Clair County, Illinois brought suit against Bayer alleging personal injury resulting from the use of the medication. The action was brought in five separate complaints with 171 plaintiffs spread among the complaints. All but one (the one apparently a mistake) of the virtually identical complaints named fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Bayer removed, citing the "mass action" removal mechanism of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Judge Murphy (S.D. Ill) remanded the four complaints that had fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Bayer petitioned to appeal under CAFA.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Evans denied the petition. CAFA's "mass action" provision allows a defendant to remove an action if it has 100 or more plaintiffs and otherwise meets CAFA’s removal requirements. The provision specifically excludes an action in which claims are consolidated upon the request of a defendant. The Court found this plain language of the statute dispositive of Bayer's request. Apparently, Congress anticipated this very situation and decided to allow plaintiffs to proceed in state court by limiting each complaint to fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Although the Court concluded that CAFA removal was not available, it did note that the claims could be removable in the future if, for example, the claims were consolidated for trial. The Court declined to consider Bayer's alternative argument that diversity jurisdiction existed under a fraudulent misjoinder theory. The exception to the general rule prohibiting review of a remand order that allowed the Court's review of the "mass action" argument applies only to the remand of class actions. Since these cases are not class actions under CAFA, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's decision regarding fraudulent joinder.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

IN RE: BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. (May 19, 2010)

A number of residents of the town of Bagley, Wisconsin filed a class-action suit in state court against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). They allege that BNSF's failure to maintain its railroad trestle resulted in a flood and damage to their property. BNSF removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). After Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) denied the class' motion to remand, the class moved to amend the complaint to withdraw all class allegations. The court granted the motion and remanded the case to state court. It analogized the situation to one in which class certification is denied and noted that district courts were divided on the impact of denial of class certification on CAFA jurisdiction. BNSF requested leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Wood, and Sykes granted the petition, vacated the remand order, and remanded. The Court noted the general rule that jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal. It then cited its recent decision in Cunningham Charter Corp. (see intheiropinion), which was decided after the district court's remand. In Cunningham Charter, the Court concluded that the denial of class certification did not require remand of a case removed under CAFA. The same considerations that lead to that conclusion should apply when class action status is amended away voluntarily.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

PETTITT v. THE BOEING COMPANY (May 17, 2010)

In the spring of 2007, a Boeing 737 crashed in Cameroon -- all those aboard died. A few years later, six lawsuits were filed relating to the accident in Cook County Circuit Court. All six suits were removed to federal court pursuant to the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act (MMTJA). Three of the six suits have since been dismissed. The other three were assigned to three different district court judges. In one of those cases, Boeing moved for a reassignment and consolidation of the case to the judge with the lowest numbered case, pursuant to local rule. Instead of ruling on the motion, however, the court on its own remanded the case to state court. The basis for his remand was the fact that not all the defendants had consented to the removal. Boeing appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Cudahy and Kanne and District Judge Darrah vacated and remanded. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction, since a remand order under § 1447 (c), as this is, is generally not appealable. The Court clarified that, although it cannot review the propriety of such an order, it can determine whether a court possessed the actual power to do what it did. Here, in fact, it concluded that the court had no such power. Any defect in the removal was a procedural defect -- and procedural defects are waived if not raised by motion within 30 days of removal. The district court has no power, on its own, to remand after the passage of the 30 days. As an aside, the Court noted the absence of any procedural defect. Acknowledging that removal generally requires the consent of all defendants, the Court stated that removal under the MMTJA does not require all defendants' consent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FIRST BANK v. DJL PROPERTIES (March 24, 2010)

First Bank filed two lawsuits against DJL Properties in state court. In both cases, DJL filed class-action counterclaims. First Bank removed both cases to federal court, pursuant to the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. Both district court judges to whom the cases were assigned remanded. First Bank sought leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Williams granted the petitions for leave to appeal but affirmed the district courts. The Court stated that the law is settled, possibly for over 150 years, that a state court plaintiff cannot remove the case to federal court, even if that plaintiff becomes a counter-defendant. The 4th and 9th Circuits have applied that long-standing general rule to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court agreed. The Act specifically refers to the general removal sections of the statute where "defendant" is limited to a defendant, it uses the phrase "any defendant," and it uses a word that has a long-established meaning. The Court specifically noted the value in giving words used by Congress their standard meaning. Congress could have easily expanded the removal rights in the Act to counter-defendants. It did not. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

IN RE: SAFECO INSURANCE CO. (October 22, 2009)

Safeco Insurance Co. of America ("SICA") and Safeco Insurance Co. Of Illinois ("SICI") are subsidiaries of Safeco Corp. and provide automobile insurance. Although SICI adjusts its own claims only, SICA adjusts its claims and the claims of several other companies owned by Safeco. In 2005, Dr. F. Ryan Bemis, a chiropractor, filed a class action in Illinois state court against SICI and SICA. The complaint included causes of action based on breach of contract, consumer fraud statutes and unjust enrichment. It alleged a scheme by SICA and SICI to reduce medical payments coverage through its use of particular audit software. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) became effective seven days after the complaint was filed. Bemis later dismissed the statutory and unjust enrichment counts and amended the breach of contract count. In 2009, the state court granted class certification to a class consisting of all persons insured by Safeco insurance companies in 14 different states who had their claims adjusted by the specific software in question. Safeco removed the case to federal court, asserting that the class definition amounted to the commencement of a new action for CAFA purposes. The district court remanded, concluding that the class definition related back to the original complaint. Safeco sought leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion and Kanne granted leave to appeal and affirmed the judgment. The Court agreed with the district court that federal jurisdiction would have existed under CAFA. The Act is not retroactive, however, and the action was filed before its effective date. Therefore, stated the Court, removal under CAFA is proper only if the class certification amounted to the commencement of a new action. The central question in a relation-back analysis is whether the original pleading provided adequate notice of the class' claims. Although SICA continued to add affiliates to its roster of those for whom it processed claims after the complaint was filed, the Court concluded that the class definition related back to the filing of the complaint. The gravamen of the complaint was the use of the particular claims-processing software by SICA. The original complaint put the defendants on notice that any claim adjusted with that software was within the scope of the complaint. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SCHUR v. L.A. WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS, INC. (August 14, 2009)

Pamela Hoppe, an Illinois citizen, joined a weight loss program at her local L.A. Weight Loss Center ("Center"). After just several months of diet and nutritional supplements, Hoppe died of acute liver hepatitis. Her estate filed suit in state court against the Center alleging a variety of state law claims. The Center removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, where the parties conducted discovery for just over one year. The estate then amended its complaint, adding claims against two Center employees, both Illinois residents. The estate then moved to remand the case to state court because of the new lack of diversity. On the Center's motion, the court struck the amended complaint on the grounds that the new defendants were fraudulently joined. Later, the court granted summary judgment to the Center. The estate appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne and Sykes vacated and remanded. The Court addressed the jurisdictional issue first. It noted that 28 U.S.C § 1447(e) applies when a plaintiff seeks to join a non-diverse party that would eliminate subject matter jurisdiction. A district court has two options -- it can deny the joinder and keep the case or it can allow the joinder and remand the case. It should not do what the court did here – allow the joinder and keep the case. The Court then adopted a framework of factors a lower court should consider in exercising its discretion on joinder: the plaintiff's motive, the timeliness of the request, the harm to the plaintiff if denied, and other equitable considerations. Before addressing these factors, the Court “detoured” to address whether the district court had the authority to reverse the joinder decision, further complicated by the fact that a magistrate judge had granted the motion to amend. In the particular posture of this case, the Court concluded that the district court was permitted to reconsider the magistrate's order. Because the motion was granted as a routine matter without any indication of its jurisdictional significance, the Court joined several other courts in concluding that a district court may reconsider a prior joinder decision when it was unaware that joinder would defeat diversity. Finally, the Court proceeded to examine the lower court's exercise of its discretion. The lower court had relied on the doctrine of fraudulent joinder in striking the amended complaint. It found that it was unlikely that the estate could prevail against the individual defendants. The Court concluded that the district court misapplied Illinois law in reaching that conclusion. Although vicarious liability can result in employer liability for employees' misconduct when the acts were committed within the scope of employment, it does not affect the employees' direct liability. The Court found that it was error to conclude that it was unlikely for the state to succeed against the individual employees. With respect to the plaintiff’s delay in adding the individual employees, the Court acknowledged that the amendment followed a year of discovery but emphasized that the amendment came within a few months of the estate learning of each employee's role in the events prior to Hoppe's death. Thus, the Court concluded that the lower court abused its discretion in denying the remand. Since it had no jurisdiction, it should not have reached the merits and neither did the Court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WOLF v. KENNELLY (July 23, 2009)

Ford Kennelly, an Indiana citizen, received a $1.3 million arbitration award, jointly and severally, against commodities brokers Rosenthal Collins Group ("RCG") and Ken Wolf. Wolf filed a petition to vacate in state court. He included a request for declaratory relief against RCG, alleging that RCG had made a demand for indemnity against him. Kennelly removed the petition to federal court and asked that RCG be realigned as a petitioner. RCG was an Illinois citizen. Its presence as a defendant prevented removal. Wolf moved to remand, opposing the realignment of RCG. Several months later, the parties discovered that one of RCG's limited partners was an Indiana citizen. Since Kennelly was also an Indiana citizen, diversity would be destroyed if RCG was realigned as a petitioner. The district court granted the motion to remand. The court then denied Wolf's request for attorneys' fees, concluding that the case was an exceptional one not warranting a fee award. Wolf appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Kanne reversed and remanded. The Court first rejected Wolf's argument that the court's brief minute order, without much discussion or analysis, was an abuse of discretion. The Court noted that the issue had been fully briefed and the judge explained his rationale on the record, although not repeating it in the minute order. On the merits, the Court concluded that Wolf did not have an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. The "objectively reasonable basis" standard is similar to the qualified immunity doctrine. A district court may award fees if "clearly established" law prevents removal. At the time Kennelly sought removal, the long-standing precedent in the circuit was that realignment of a party was improper if an actual and substantial controversy existed between the plaintiff and that party. The fact that Wolf and RCG shared an interest in escaping liability altogether did not justify the realignment. The Court remanded for consideration of the fee petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MARSHALL v. H&R BLOCK TAX SERVICES, INC. (April 30, 2009)

Suit was filed in state court against a defendant class of companies. The defendant class consisted of H&R Block Tax Services, Inc. ("TSI") and its affiliates or franchisees. The suit, brought on behalf of a plaintiff class, alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The state court certified the defendant class and originally three plaintiff classes, including people in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. On TSI's motion, the court decertified the defendant class but refused to decertify the plaintiff class, although it did narrow it to residents of only 13 states. TSI removed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), on the theory that the decertification of the defendant class occurred after CAFA’s effective date and increased TSI’s potential liability. The district court remanded the case to state court. TSI requested leave to appeal, which the Court granted.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Tinder reversed. A case that was filed before the effective date of CAFA may still become removable if a court's ruling after its effective date increases a defendant's potential liability and does not "relate back" to the original claim. The Court first explored whether the decertification increased TSI's potential liability. On the pleadings, the Court concluded that TSI's potential liability may well have increased. Before decertification, it was not liable for the unlawful acts of all class members simply because it was a corporate affiliate, or because it was a class representative. Similarly, although the original complaint alleged joint and several liability, the complaint included three other defendants. The Court could not determine whether the plaintiffs sought to hold TSI liable for all the affiliates. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs may well be attempting to hold TSI liable for the acts of all the affiliates after decertification, which would appear to increase TSI's liability. With respect to whether the change "relates back" to the original complaint, the Court looked to whether the original complaint provided sufficient notice of the scope of the claim such that the defendant should not be surprised by the increased scope. Relying on its own conclusion that TSI's original liability was significantly less than it was facing after the ruling, the Court concluded that it did not relate back.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

POLLITT v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION (March 10, 2009)

Juli Pollitt was a federal employee with health care insurance administered by Health Care Service Corporation ("HCSC"). In 2007, HCSC stopped paying all claims submitted by Pollitt on behalf of her son and began trying to recoup payments it had already made to service providers on his behalf. Pollitt filed suit in state court, alleging that HCSC took the action it did when the Department of Labor failed to pay the proper premium. HCSC removed the case to federal court, where it was dismissed as preempted by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act. Pollitt appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Evans vacated and remanded. The Court first concluded that the lower court erred in allowing §1441 removal. Preemption is a defense to a state law claim but a federal defense does not support removal. "Complete preemption" would support removal but not as a defense -- rather, as a conclusion that any claim in the area arises under federal law. The Court noted, however, that the Supreme Court held that federal law does not completely occupy the health-insurance coverage field for federal workers. Section 1441 is not the only basis for removal, however. The Court referred to §1442(a)(1), which provides that a person "acting under" a federal officer can remove a suit that depends on the fact that the defendant followed the directions of that officer. The Court noted the parties’ disagreement over whether HCSC was simply following instructions from the Department of Labor. The Court remanded to the district court with instructions to resolve these jurisdictional facts. If HCSC was merely following the direction of the Department of Labor, the case belongs in district court but must then be dismissed. HCSC is the improper defendant in the suit related to the agency’s coverage decisions. On the other hand, if HCSC was acting on its own, there is no basis for removal and the case should be remanded to state court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

KURZ v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CO. (February 23, 2009)

Kurz and Heinzl both invested in portfolios managed by Fidelity Management & Research Co. (“Fidelity”). Apparently, some Fidelity employees placed trades with Jeffries & Co. in return for kickbacks from Jeffries. The SEC initiated a proceeding under the Investment Company Act and the Investment Advisors Act. Fidelity and the SEC entered into a consent decree. Kurz and Heinzl thereafter filed a class-action suit in state court, alleging that the employees’ conduct resulted in a breach of contract by Fidelity. Fidelity removed to federal court on the basis that their failure to disclose the employees’ misconduct was a securities law issue. The district court denied Kurz’ motion to remand and entered judgment for Fidelity. Kurz appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Sykes and Kendall affirmed. The Court referred to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (the “Act”). The Act generally bars class actions based on state law which allege an omission of a material fact “in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security. The Court noted that there are exceptions to the bar (like a derivative action) but Kurz did not invoke any exception. Instead, his position was that the claim was a contract claim -- not one for a misrepresentation or omission. The Court agreed that a true action for breach of contract would not be barred by the Act but concluded that Kurz could not maintain an action for breach of contract. The principal reason for his inability to do so was the complete absence of any promise made by Fidelity to Kurz.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

KATZ v. GERARDI (January 5, 2009)

Jack Katz brought this action on behalf of a class of persons who contributed real property to a real estate investment trust (“REIT”). In exchange, they received an interest in the REIT. The REIT merged into a new entity in 2007. The interest-holders were offered either cash or an interest in the new entity. Katz took the cash but filed suit in state court, alleging that the offer violated the terms of their original agreement with the REIT. He based the action on the Securities Act of 1933 ( “’33 Act”). Defendants removed the suit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). The district court concluded that removal was not allowed by the ’33 Act. The defendants petition for appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Sykes granted the petition and vacated and remanded the decision of the district court. The Court first addressed whether Katz’ action was even one under the ’33 Act. The ’33 Act applies only to purchasers of securities – Katz and the class members are sellers of securities. The Court was inclined to believe that Katz was styling his claim as one under the ’33 Act in order to prevent removal. The district court had acknowledged the same issue. It decided that the weakness of the pleading went to the merits, not to whether it was removable. The Court recognized the difficulty in distinguishing between a claim designed to defeat federal jurisdiction and one, though ultimately unsuccessful, is properly pleaded. Ultimately, the Court decided to accept the pleading as one under the ’33 Act and address the conflict between the laws.

The ’33 Act provides that actions brought under the statute in state court are not removable except in particular circumstances. CAFA allows for removal of class actions if certain criteria are met – which admittedly are met here. The Court noted the canons of construction that apply when statutes are in conflict – an older statute yields to a newer and a less specific yields to a more specific. But the Court concluded that it did not have to apply those canons. The statutes, in fact, are not incompatible. The very language of CAFA provides the answer. The broad removal authority granted by CAFA is modified by the almost identical lists of exceptions in §1332(d)(9) and §1453(d). The Court concluded that class actions brought under the ‘33 Act are removable unless one of the §1453(d) exceptions applies. Katz relied on one of the exceptions – claims that relate to rights and duties relating to any security. The Court noted an inconsistency between Katz’ attempts to fit his claim into the exception while still relying on the ‘33 Act. Nevertheless, the Court decided the best course was to remand to determine whether the claim fit within the exception.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link