## Facts

- Nearly 200 residents of Harvey, Louisiana sued Exxon Mobil Corporation and other defendants for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by decades of exposure to airborne radioactive dust released during pipe-cleaning operations near their homes.
- Plaintiffs alleged the pipe-cleaning operations occurred for more than 30 years and created hazardous conditions involving radioactive contamination; plaintiffs claimed defendants knew or should have known of the danger but failed to warn residents for decades.
- Plaintiffs sought damages for a range of injuries and losses, including diseases and cancer, emotional and other personal-injury damages, property damage, and diminution in property value.
- Consistent with Louisiana pleading rules, the state-court petition did not state a specific dollar amount of damages.
- In responses to interrogatories, some plaintiffs identified serious injuries, including emphysema, lung cancer, and at least one wrongful-death claim.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing defendants failed to establish CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirements; the district court agreed and remanded for lack of proof that the required individual amount in controversy was met.

## Issues

1. Whether the removing defendants established CAFA mass-action jurisdiction by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at least 100 plaintiffs had claims placing more than $75,000 in controversy.
2. Whether the district court applied an overly demanding standard by requiring individualized proof of each plaintiff’s damages rather than permitting reasonable inferences from the pleadings and “summary-judgment-type” evidence, including interrogatory responses and claim characteristics.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the remand order.
- The court held defendants met their burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the action satisfied CAFA’s mass-action amount-in-controversy requirement, including that at least 100 plaintiffs’ claims likely exceeded $75,000.
- The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings in federal court.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant removing under CAFA bears the burden to establish federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
- In a CAFA “mass action,” federal jurisdiction requires (among other elements) monetary-relief claims of 100 or more persons proposed to be tried jointly, an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, minimal diversity, and satisfaction of the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for the relevant number of plaintiffs required under the mass-action provision as applied in the Fifth Circuit.
- When the complaint does not plead a specific dollar amount (including due to state pleading restrictions), the removing defendant may rely on “summary-judgment-type” evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the nature of the alleged injuries and damages.
- Courts may consider discovery responses (such as interrogatories) that identify serious injuries (e.g., lung cancer or wrongful death) when evaluating whether the jurisdictional amounts are more likely than not met.
- At the jurisdictional stage, the removing party need not prove damages with precision for each plaintiff; requiring individualized proof can impose a standard higher than the preponderance test.
- A district court errs if it rejects reasonable, evidence-based inferences and instead demands detailed damages proof inconsistent with the governing removal standard.

## Conclusion

Because the pleadings and jurisdictional materials—including interrogatory responses describing severe illnesses and a wrongful-death claim, along with allegations of long-term exposure and claimed property losses—supported a finding that at least 100 plaintiffs more likely than not had more than $75,000 at stake, the Fifth Circuit held CAFA mass-action removal was proper, reversed the remand order, and returned the case to federal district court.


Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 814 F.3d 236 (2015)