18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

450 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition under this exception, Plaintiffs relied on their class definition of all “persons . . . who resided in any of the facilities at any time” during the four-year class period. Id. at *24. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned, however, that residency in Florida does not equal citizenship, and that Plaintiffs needed to established that the class members intended to remain in Florida. Plaintiffs submitted evidence to that effect, and the Eleventh Circuit grouped Plaintiffs’ documents into three groups, including data generated by federal agencies, economic studies regarding nursing facility markets, and population migration reports. Id. at *10. After reviewing this evidence, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs’ “generalized studies and surveys” failed to prove the requisite citizenship prong. Id. at *26. The Eleventh Circuit pointed out that none of the documents addressed the citizenship of individuals residing in Florida nursing homes, nor did they even discuss any of the 22 nursing home facilities at issue in this matter. The Eleventh Circuit also considered remand under the CAFA’s discretionary exception, which allows remand of an action to state court where “(1) greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the aggregate members are citizens of the state in which the class action was originally filed; and (2) the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the class action was originally filed.” Id. at *35. The Eleventh Circuit held that Plaintiffs’ generalized evidence failed to establish the citizenship requirement, as they did not submit any evidence specifically relating to any putative class members’ intent to remain in Florida. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit opined that, while Defendant MMI was a “primary Defendant,” it was not a Florida citizen. Id. at *36-37. For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (xii) District Of Columbia Circuit Beyond Pesticides , et al. v. Exxon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53032 (D.D.C. March 22, 2021). Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, asserting claims under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act relative to allegations relative to purported misleading advertisements. Defendants removed the action on the grounds that subject-matter jurisdiction was proper under either: (1) the federal diversity jurisdiction statute, or (2) a “class action” provision under the CAFA. Id. at *2. Plaintiff thereafter moved to remand. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Id. at *6. In relevant part, the Court noted that Defendants argued that removal was appropriate under a CAFA provision that extends federal jurisdiction to certain class actions. Id. at *6. The Court explained, however, that Plaintiff made no allegations in its complaint about a potential class, and made no claims under Rule 23. The Court thus held that the suit was not asserted by Plaintiff as a class action and that it lacked jurisdiction under the CAFA statute. Id. at *7. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Id. at *8.