Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 12 September 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 11-2552,11-2552 |
Parties | Brian D. Hartis; Jacqueline H. Hartis Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Chicago Title Insurance Company Defendant - Appellee |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
Before SMITH, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Brian D. Hartis and Jacqueline H. Hartis (collectively, "the Hartises") appeal from the district court's1 denial of their motion to remand their suit against Chicago Title Insurance Company ("Chicago Title") to state court. They argue that the districtcourt erroneously determined that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In the alternative, the Hartises argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motion for leave to amend their complaint to assert a punitive-damages claim. Finally, they contend that the district court erred in dismissing their claims as moot. We affirm.
In ¶ 11 of the petition, the Hartises alleged that "Chicago [Title] collected a recording fee from Missouri residents alone over a five[-]year period on more than 71,000 transactions." They also claimed that, "[a]part from Missouri, Chicago [Title] acts as an escrow and disbursement agent in connection with real estate closings in sixteen other states and the District of Columbia."
As to typicality, the Hartises alleged in ¶ 13 of the petition that their "claims are essentially identical, and therefor[e] typical of, the claims of each other class member in that they are based on identical relationship with Chicago [Title] and identical conduct of Chicago [Title] in each transaction and are based on the same legal theory."
"The petition asserted a claim for conversion and sought money damages for the class members that was 'fair and reasonable,' reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, and other relief." Hartis, 656 F.3d at 779.
Following Chicago Title's notice of removal, the Hartises "moved to remand to state court, asserting that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because a preponderance of the evidence does not indicate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million." Id. Specifically, they argued "that Chicago Title's jurisdictional argument, as it stands, which is based on the number of transactions inwhich an overcharge could have occurred rather than on actual evidence of overcharges, is insufficient." Id. According to the Hartises, "in order to meet its burden, Chicago Title must provide extensive evidence of specific overcharges sufficient to prove up the $5 million threshold." Id.
The district court denied the Hartises' motion to remand. "In its first determination of jurisdiction," the court concluded that the CAFA jurisdictional amount of $5 million was satisfied "'[b]ased on the damages alleged in [the Hartises'] petition, the size of the potential class in this case, [the Hartises'] allegation that Chicago Title over-collected in many of its transactions, and the information provided by [Chicago Title] in the Ellis affidavit.'" Id. (quoting Appellants' Addendum at 4). "Later in its order, when discussing whether or not the jurisdictional threshold would be reached if Chicago Title's transactions in only 12 states were considered . . . , the court did include 'the potential for collection of significant attorneys fees' as a factor in determining that . . . the $5 million threshold was met." Id. at 780–81 (quoting Appellants' Addendum at 4–5).
The Hartises appealed the district court's denial of their motion to remand, arguing, inter alia, that "the district court erred in relying on attorneys' fees to find that the requisite amount in controversy was met because only statutory attorneys' fees can be counted towards the jurisdictional amount and they sought no statutory fees in their state court petition." Id. at 781.
Because "[i]t [was] unclear to us whether or not the district court included an amount for attorneys' fees in its calculation of the jurisdictional amount," we "remand[ed] to the district court for a redetermination of whether Chicago Title ha[d] proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy is satisfied." Id. at 782.
We did "not address the [Hartises'] . . . argument that the record before the district court was insufficient to support the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million" because of our remand to the district court regarding its "possible erroneous inclusion of the [Hartises'] claim for 'reasonable attorneys' fees.'" Id. at 782 n.1.
To continue reading
Request your trial