Cohen v. Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority

Filing 43

ORDER re: Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 3/1/12. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RHODE ISLAND TURNPIKE AND
)
BRIDGE AUTHORITY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________)
ISABEL S. COHEN, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated,

C.A. No. 09-153 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
I.

Background
Pursuant to the Court’s request at a March 25, 2011

in-chambers conference, the parties submitted letter briefs
discussing whether the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(“CAFA”) applies to the parties’ settlement in this matter.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that
CAFA’s substantive provisions apply to this class action.
II.

Discussion
CAFA

contains

provisions.1

1

both

substantive

and

jurisdictional

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711-15 (2006);

The phrase “substantive provisions” refers to the
section of CAFA titled “Consumer Class Action Bill of

see also C. Douglas Floyd, The Inadequacy Of The Interstate
Commerce Justification For The Class Action Fairness Act Of
2005, 55 Emory L.J. 487, 490-91 (2006).
jurisdictional

provisions

expands

jurisdiction of federal courts.

One of CAFA’s
the

diversity

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

Plaintiff contends that, because the Court did not acquire
jurisdiction

over

jurisdictional

of

matter

provision,

should not apply.
provisions

this

CAFA

under

CAFA’s

that

newly

substantive

minted

provisions

Defendant rejoins that the substantive
apply

to

all

federal

class

actions,

regardless of the source of jurisdiction.
CAFA broadly defines the term “class action” in its
substantive provisions to include “any civil action filed
in a district court of the United States under rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . .”
1711.

There

is

no

reference

to

the

28 U.S.C. §

jurisdictional

provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), in this definition.
Here,

the

Court

certified

this

class

action

in

accordance with Rule 23, so it follows that the substantive
provisions of CAFA apply.

See Touhey v. United States, No.

EDCV 08-01418-VAP (RCx), 2011 WL 3179036, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
July 25, 2011) (noting denial of a settlement agreement on
Rights” while the phrase “jurisdictional provisions” refers
to those sections of CAFA that amend 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and
add 28 U.S.C. § 1453.
2

grounds that the defendant had not yet met its obligations
under CAFA where jurisdiction was based on the presence of
a federal question and the fact that the United States was
a defendant).
Plaintiff relies on Amoche v. Guar. Trust Life Ins.
Co., 556 F.3d 41, 43 (1st Cir. 2009), but
help;

it

merely

outlines

jurisdiction

over

citizenship.

class

Id.

the

requirements

actions

based

on

Amoche is no
for

asserting

diversity

of

Neither Amoche, nor any other case, to

the Court’s knowledge, has restricted the application of
CAFA’s substantive provisions to only those actions brought
under CAFA’s jurisdictional provisions.
Moreover,

an

interpretation

that

CAFA’s

substantive

provisions apply only to class members whose actions obtain
jurisdiction under CAFA’s jurisdictional provisions would
be inconsistent with the chief goal of CAFA’s substantive
provisions

–-

beneficiaries.

to
See

provide
S.

safeguards

Rep.

No.

to

109-14,

class
at

30

action
(2005),

reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 29 (stating that the primary
function
ensure

of
that

CAFA’s
class

substantive
actions

do

beneficiaries”).

3

provisions
not

hurt

is
their

to

“help

intended

III. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court concludes
that CAFA’s substantive provisions apply to the parties’
settlement in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: March 1, 2012

4