Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal District Court Rejects Motion to Enjoin Biden Administration’s Section 401 Clean Water Act Rule
- Federal District Court Holds that CERCLA Procedure for Natural Resource Damage Assessments Not Required as a Matter of Law
- Local Law Prohibiting Natural Gas Piping is Preempted, Ninth Circuit Holds
- District Court Failed to Consider Maui Factors as to Mining Company's Groundwater Discharges, Tenth Circuit Holds
- Federal District Court Excludes Expert Testimony in Flint Water Cases as Unreliable
Topics
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- New Mexico
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Residential
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
- Danielle N. Bagwell
- Brielle A. Brown
- Kate Campbell
- Stephen D. Daly
- Thomas M. Duncan
- Kelly A. Hanna
- Jessica D. Hunt
- Todd D. Kantorczyk
- Dylan G. LaMorte
- Brandon P. Matsnev
- Giselle F. Mazmanian
- Nicole R. Moshang
- Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller
- Diana A. Silva
- Alice Douglas Solomon
- Natalia P. Teekah
- Garrett D. Trego
In a toxic tort class action involving a chemical spill that may have affected thousands of individuals in an immediate geographic area, the Eighth Circuit held that class action plaintiffs’ expert report definitively alleging damages greater than $5 million triggered defendant’s 30-day removal period under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), but held that an earlier letter from plaintiffs’ counsel “recommending” a settlement over $5 million did not. Gibson v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., No. 16-8012, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19073 (8th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016). CAFA was enacted in 2005 and expanded federal diversity jurisdiction to include a greater number of class actions and other multi-plaintiff actions. Among other things, CAFA provides that where a putative class includes greater than 100 members seeking greater than $5 million, the defendant may remove the action, regardless of traditional diversity requirements.
Gibson was originally filed in Arkansas state court where the class action plaintiffs pleaded a class larger than 100 members but stipulated that their total damages did not exceed $5 million, as was permitted prior to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Standard Fire Insurance v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 1347 (2013) which outlawed that practice going forward.
By letter dated March 11, 2016, more than three years into the case, however, plaintiffs’ attorney “‘recommended a total payment of $6,500,000 to resolve’ the case,” Gibson, at *3, and noted that the letter “constitutes plaintiffs’ settlement demand.” Id. at *18 (Murphy, J. dissenting). Following the letter, on April 21, 2016, plaintiffs served defendant with an expert report supporting the $6.5 million demand with objective evidence and a more fully developed theory on the calculation of damages. Defendant filed its notice of removal in the Western District of Arkansas on May 9, 2016, within 30 days of the expert report but more than 30 days after the date of the letter.
Accordingly, plaintiffs argued that the letter provided the necessary “‘pleading, motion, order, or other paper’ from which the defendant [could] unambiguously ascertain” that the CAFA requirements were satisfied, while the defendant argued that only the expert report made this conclusion “unambiguous.” Id. at *8 (quoting CAFA at 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3)).
After the W.D. Arkansas agreed with the plaintiffs, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the defendant, overturning the district court and holding that the expert report and not the letter provided the first “unambiguous” indication that plaintiffs were seeking greater than $5 million in damages. While the Eighth Circuit noted that a letter could provide such an unambiguous indication, this particular letter did not because the plaintiffs’ attorney only “recommended” a settlement greater than $5 million and because the data that the letter provided could easily be interpreted to warrant a settlement much lower than $5 million.
The Eight Circuit stated that its decision was intended to reduce the number of preemptive removals filed by class action defendants by requiring that the standard definitively be met. To the contrary, the overall impact of this case is likely to have the opposite effect. It shows that when the $5 million CAFA threshold is met may actually turn on a subjective determination that is different for each federal judge. In fact, in this case, of the four federal judges who considered the issue—one from the W.D. Arkansas and three from the Eighth Circuit’s panel—two found plaintiffs’ letter “unambiguous” and two found the opposite. Given these odds, defense attorneys would be wise to err on the side of caution remove at the first indication that the CAFA requirements have been established.