Class Representative’s Motion To Remand For Insufficient Amount In Controversy Doesn’t Add Up


A Kentucky federal court recently ruled that a class plaintiff may not defeat removal by understating the aggregate amount in controversy alleged in her complaint.

The defendants had assisted plaintiff in connection with her claim for Social Security Disability benefits after she was referred to them by her long-term disability insurance carrier.  According to plaintiff, the nature of the fee arrangement between the defendants and the referring insurance carriers created a conflict of interest, which the defendants unlawfully failed to disclose, causing her to suffer between $5,000 and $75,000 in damages.  On behalf of purportedly “hundreds” of similarly situated Kentucky residents, she commenced a class action lawsuit in Kentucky state court.  After the defendants removed the case to federal court, plaintiff filed a motion to remand.  As the basis for her motion, plaintiff argued that defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, as required under CAFA.

The court found facts suggesting otherwise.  Plaintiff alleged that she, as the class representative, suffered at least $5,000 in damages.  Defendants further provided evidence with their notice of removal that they were hired to assist more than 1300 Social Security Disability claimants in Kentucky.  Thus the court found, by even the most conservative estimate, the aggregate amount in controversy equalled at least $6.5 million.

Plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that, for purposes of calculating the aggregate amount in controversy, it was inappropriate for the court to include as members of the putative class all 1300 claimants supposedly assisted by defendants because the claims of many potential class members would be time-barred by a 1-year statute of limitations.  The court held that this additional “fact” strayed beyond the scope of what the court was permitted to consider as part of its jurisdictional inquiry and, in any event, was inconsistent with plaintiff’s actually alleged class definition, which was not restricted to SSD claimants represented by defendants within the last year.  Accordingly, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Black v. Crowe, Paradis, & Albren, LLC, et al., No. 5:14-cv-00187-KKC (E.D. Ky Aug. 13, 2014).

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Carlton Fields Jorden Burt | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.