Arrington, et al v. Ana P. Hall Construction, L.L.C., et al
Filing
53
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Paul C. Huck on 8/12/16. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WALTER ARRINGTON, III,
An Individual, et al.,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv711-PCH
)
v.
)
)
ANA P. HALL CONSTRUCTION,
L.L.C., an unregistered
foreign limited liability
corporation; et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
OPINION
The
approximately
brought a
200
plaintiffs
number of contract and tort
in
this
case
claims against
the corporate and individual defendants in state court.
The
plaintiffs
apartment
defendants,
the
alleged
complex owned,
that
they
operated,
all
lived
failure
to
an
or managed by the
and suffered various harms as a
defendants'
in
maintain
the
result of
premises;
according to the complaint, the complex was dilapidated
and infested,
and suffered from frequent interruptions
in utility services.
The defendants removed this case to federal court
on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(CAFA), 28
u.s.c.
§
1332(d), which creates an exception
to the ordinary requirement of complete diversity for
certain large class and mass actions.
The case is now
before the court on the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
CAFA
gives
federal
jurisdiction over a
action or a
controversy
mass
case which is
action,
exceeds
district
$ 5
(2)
courts
(1)
original
either a
class
in which the amount
million,
and
(3)
in which
in
a
minimal diversity requirement--as pertinent here,
that
any plaintiff is a
citizen of a
from
any
met.
defendant--is
1332 (d) (11).
u.s.c.
28
Additionally,
State different
CAFA
§§
1332 (d) (2),
includes
exceptions
that require courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction
over two categories of cases that otherwise meet these
three requirements.
28 U.S.C.
2
§
1332(d) (4).
In
the
plaintiffs'
motion
to
remand,
they
admit
that the minimal diversity requirement is met, but they
argue that this case is not a umass action" within the
meaning of the statute,
requirement
is
not
that the amount-in-controversy
satisfied,
and
that
exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction apply.
previously
ordered
discovery,
and
the
two
The court has
to
conduct
limited
supplemental
submit
parties
the
briefs,
on
the
amount-in-controversy question.
That discovery is on-
going.
the
This
plaintiffs'
opinion
resolves
arguments
for
remand,
remainder
on
the
of
the
basis
of
representations made during a telephone conference held
on the record on June 17, 2016.
First,
conference
u.s.c.
§
plaintiffs'
that
the
two
the
deems
Tr.
{doc. no.
the
3
set
during
forth
ulocal
exceptions- -were not
would be entitled to."
therefore
conceded
exceptions
1332{d) {4)--known as
and uhome state"
court
counsel
plaintiffs'
in
28
controversy"
none [s]
52)
that
that we
at 21.
The
arguments
regarding
the
applicability
of
those
exceptions
abandoned, and will not address them further.
The plaintiffs'
argument
that
this
case does
not
qualify as a mass action warrants closer consideration.
CAFA applies both to class actions and to mass actions,
which are defined generally as ucivil action[s]
.... in
which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are
proposed
to be
plaintiffs'
tried
claims
18 U.S.C.
fact."
jointly on
the
ground that
the
involve common questions of law or
§
1332 (d) (11) (B) (i).
However,
cases
in which uall of the claims in the action arise from an
event or occurrence in the State in which the action
was
filed,
and that allegedly results
in injuries
in
that State or in States contiguous to that State," are
excluded
U.S.C.
§
from
the
definition
of
1332(d)(ll)(B)(ii)(I).
mass
action
by
18
(This is known as the
ulocal occurrence" exclusion.)
The
plaintiffs
number
more
than
100,
and
their
claims clearly raise common questions of law and fact,
but
they
argue
that
the
local
4
occurrence
exclusion
applies.
The
rub
is
this:
plaintiffs
acknowledged
during the June 17 conference that their case involves
not
a
single
injury-causing event
or occurrence,
but
rather "a series of events and occurrences"--"numerous"
"failure[s] to maintain," "over several years," each of
which caused harm to the plaintiffs.
Tr .
(doc . no . 52)
at 21-25.
Although
squarely
there
is
addressing
no
Eleventh
whether
Circuit
the
local
case
law
occurrence
exclusion applies to a series of discrete events over a
period of
Alabama
time,
and
does not.
there
Fifth
Indeed,
identify--and
the
are
recent
Circuit
Middle
decisions
District
holding
that
of
it
the plaintiffs have been unable to
court
has
not
found--any
case
applying the exclusion to a similar set of claims.
In Adams v. Macon County Greyhound Park,
F. Supp.
2d 1127
concluded,
provision's
occurrence"
(M.D. Ala.
Inc., 829
2011), Chief Judge Watkins
in light of and in line with the exclusion
legislative
must
be
a
history,
single,
5
that
discrete
an
"event
incident,
or
and
not merely similar instances taking place at the same
location for which the same defendants are responsible.
Id.
at
1134-37.
In
this
case,
as
in
Adams
(which
involved claims by hundreds of people who had gambled
at the same casino),
claims
based
on
"each of the
individual
[]
[]
Plaintiffs brings
contracts
he
or
she
entered into with one or more of the Defendants."
at 1137;
v.
see also id.
at 1135-36
Sunvest Communities USA,
Fla. 2009)
LLC,
(discussing Galstadi
256 F.R.D.
673
(S.D.
(Altonaga, J.), in which the court concluded
that claims by approximately 180 plaintiffs
had
Id.
been
duped
into
paying
for
that they
units
in
a
pre-conversion luxury condominium development--and were
left with worthless, dilapidated,
did
not
fall
under
the
local
infested apartments-occurrence
exclusion,
because these claims were based upon hundreds of sales
over a period of more than a year) .
In
Rainbow
Gun
L.L.C., 760 F.3d 405
adopted a
Club,
Inc.
v.
Denbury
Onshore,
(5th Cir. 2014), the Fifth Circuit
slightly broader understanding of
6
"event or
.
.
.
occurrence,"
plaintiffs
but
one
in this
that
nonetheless
case.
does
not
help
Rainbow Gun Club held that
"the single event or occurrence may also be constituted
by
a
pattern
of
conduct
in
consistent
in
leading to a
culminates
in
the
Id.
at 412.
basis
allegedly
harmed
uallow[ed]
extraneous
reservoir,
greatly
Well."
Id.
event
or
number
when
the
at 407.
different
the
flooding,
a
water
case,
malfeasance
event,
or a
by
did
to
enter
the
despite
acts
that
liability."
driller,
a
[a
single]
productivity
the
had
allegation
caused
gas
of
the
acts
a
flooding,
rather than from
leading
the
culminate
the
that
claims arose from the
singular event,
contrast,
not
asserted
is
The court recognized this as an
the multiple underlying
present
pattern
focused event
defendant,
explaining that the plaintiffs'
eventual
the
all of the plaintiffs were
reducing
occurrence
of
single
of
In that case,
which
to
defendants'
in
a
In
it.
single
the
alleged
focused
such as the collapse of the apartment building
fire
or the
like.
Instead,
7
their claims
arise
'
'
.
directly from failures by the defendants to provide a
wide
array
of
maintenance
services
to
plaintiffs
in
one
of
numerous different units.
Finally,
the
court
recognizes
that
court
appeals has concluded that uan event or occurrence" can
be ua continuing set of circumstances" that upersist[s]
over a
[lengthy] period of time."
Renaissance Grp.,
2 013}
that
.
L.L.L.P.,
Abraham v. St. Croix
719 F.3d 270,
But even if the Third Circuit's
case
is
correct,
of
the
application
plaintiffs
injured
in
by
not
in
this
exclusion
Abraham
what
does
it
the
alleged
court
that
277
(3d Cir.
reasoning in
support
the
case.
The
they
ucharacterized
had
as
been
the
'continuous release of toxic substances'" from red mud
at
a
former
refinery
site,
where
the
defendant-owner
had failed to undertake appropriate abatement measures.
Id.
at
argument
279.
that
The
court
ureject[ed]
the
plaintiffs'
claims
[defendant's]
arose
from
multiple events or occurrences," because, it explained,
uwe
cannot
identify
separate
8
and
discrete
incidents
. ..
causing the emission of the various substances at any
precise
point
contrast,
the
separate
acts
in
time."
Id.
plaintiffs'
and
at
280.
complaint
omissions
by
Here,
alleges
the
by
numerous
defendants
that
allegedly injured the various plaintiffs
in different
ways at different points
e.g.,
(doc. no. 1-3) at 26
negligent
supervision,
Park
See,
Compl.
("The corporate defendants, by and
through their agents,
were
in time.
servants,
leasing,
concerning
maintenance
by
Apartments
and
a
and/ or employees,
repair
series
of
of
management,
the
Cambridge
unlawful
acts
including negligently failing to make repairs necessary
for the units to become habitable; negligently renting
units
to tenants
that were not habitable;
removing tenants'
negligently
personal property;
negligently
[and]
failing to provide pest control services
The
court
controversy
case
therefore
exclusion
constitutes
a
concludes
does
mass
not
apply,
action
for
9
. . . . ") .
that
and
the
that
purposes
local
this
of
18
. ..
U.S.C.
§
1332 (d) (11)
if
the
Plaintiffs
also meet
the
amount-in-controversy requirements.
DONE, this the 12th da~16.
Paul C. Huck
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?