## Facts

- Gloria Hackman, a District of Columbia consumer, sued One Brands, LLC in D.C. Superior Court under the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA).
- Hackman alleged One Brands’ “ONE Bars” labeling and advertising misrepresented the product’s sugar content, and that the bars contained substantially more sugar than represented.
- Hackman brought the case as a CPPA “public-interest” action on behalf of the general public, rather than as a Rule 23 class action.
- Hackman sought an injunction barring the sale of ONE Bars in the District until One Brands either (a) recalled and relabeled the product or (b) reformulated the bars to contain less sugar.
- Hackman also requested attorneys’ fees and costs, and sought monetary remedies available under the CPPA, including punitive damages and statutory damages.
- One Brands removed to federal court, asserting (1) class action jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
- Hackman moved to remand, arguing she did not plead a CAFA “class action” and that One Brands had not shown an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

## Issues

1. Whether a CPPA public-interest representative suit qualifies as a “class action” removable under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
2. Whether One Brands carried its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction, given the requested injunction and potential fee and damages awards.

## Decision

- The court granted Hackman’s motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held CAFA did not apply because Hackman’s CPPA public-interest action was not brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or a sufficiently similar District procedural rule.
- The court held One Brands failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because its amount-in-controversy showing—based largely on asserted compliance costs and potential additional remedies—was not supported with non-speculative proof tied to the D.C.-only injunction sought.
- Because the case was remanded, the court did not reach the merits of One Brands’ dismissal arguments.

## Legal Principles

- CAFA “class action” jurisdiction requires that the case be filed under Rule 23 or a comparable state (or District) statute or rule authorizing class treatment through class-like procedures; a statutory representative or public-interest action is not automatically a CAFA class action.
- On removal, the defendant bears the burden to establish federal jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy, by a preponderance of the evidence.
- When a complaint seeks injunctive relief, the amount in controversy may be measured by the value of the injunction or the defendant’s cost of compliance, but the valuation must be supported by competent evidence and cannot rest on speculation.
- The jurisdictional valuation must match the scope of the relief requested; estimates based on broader (for example, nationwide) recalls, relabeling, or reformulation can be overinclusive when the requested injunction is limited to sales in the District of Columbia.
- Potential attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and statutory damages may be considered in the amount-in-controversy calculation when legally available, but the removing party must still provide a grounded basis for concluding the jurisdictional minimum is met.

## Conclusion

The court remanded Hackman’s CPPA public-interest challenge to ONE Bars’ sugar-related labeling because the action was not a CAFA class action and One Brands did not prove that the D.C.-limited injunctive relief and other requested remedies placed more than $75,000 in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.


Hackman v. One Brands, LLC, No. CV 18-2101 (CKK) (2019)