## Facts

- Alabama residents filed a putative class action in Alabama state court alleging that multiple industrial defendants released hazardous waste into the Anniston, Alabama area for roughly 85 years, causing personal injury and property damage.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), asserting minimal diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing the case fell within CAFA’s mandatory “local controversy” exception because the dispute was primarily local and included an in-state defendant.
- The district court granted remand to state court based on the local controversy exception.
- Several defendants obtained permission to appeal the remand order under CAFA’s interlocutory appeal provision.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA.
2. Whether the party seeking remand bears the burden of proving CAFA’s local controversy exception applies.
3. Whether plaintiffs proved the local controversy exception’s requirements, including (a) that more than two-thirds of the proposed class were citizens of Alabama and (b) that an in-state defendant was a “significant defendant” from whom significant relief was sought and whose conduct formed a significant basis of the claims.
4. When the 60-day deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(2) begins to run for a CAFA remand appeal.
5. Whether the court needed to address defendants’ fraudulent joinder/misjoinder arguments.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the remand order.
- The court held CAFA’s basic jurisdictional requirements were satisfied and the federal court could exercise jurisdiction.
- The court held plaintiffs, as the parties seeking remand, bore the burden to prove the local controversy exception.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to prove (a) that more than two-thirds of the proposed class were Alabama citizens and (b) that the in-state defendant qualified as a “significant defendant” under CAFA.
- The court held the 60-day period in § 1453(c)(2) runs from the date the court of appeals accepts the appeal for review, not from the filing of the petition.
- The court declined to reach fraudulent misjoinder because CAFA jurisdiction existed and no exception required remand.

## Legal Principles

- CAFA confers federal jurisdiction over qualifying class actions based on minimal diversity and an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.
- CAFA’s local controversy exception is construed narrowly and applies only when each statutory prerequisite is proven.
- The party seeking remand bears the burden of proving a CAFA exception, treated as a limitation akin to abstention rather than a negation of jurisdictional facts.
- For diversity purposes, “citizenship” means domicile; evidence of residence alone is insufficient to establish class-member citizenship for the two-thirds requirement.
- An in-state defendant qualifies as “significant” only if class members seek significant relief from that defendant and the defendant’s alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the asserted claims.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(2), the appellate 60-day decision deadline begins when the court of appeals accepts the appeal.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that CAFA provided federal jurisdiction over the removed class action and that plaintiffs did not carry their burden to prove the local controversy exception, requiring reversal of the district court’s remand to state court.


Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2006)