In Re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company
Decision Date | 19 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 09-8023.,09-8023. |
Citation | 606 F.3d 379 |
Parties | In re BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, William Barbee, and Francis Weber, Petitioners. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Timothy R. Thornton (submitted), Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioners.
Christopher D. Stombaugh (submitted), Kopp, McKichan, Geyerm Clare & Skemp, Platteville, WI, for Respondents.
Before KANNE, WOOD, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
The defendants removed this class action suit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), but when the plaintiffs amended their complaint to omit the class allegations, the district court found jurisdiction lacking and remanded the case to state court. The defendants petitioned for leave to appeal the order of remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c). We accept the appeal and reverse.
This case began when Allen Moore and other residents of Bagley, Wisconsin, acting as representatives of a class of local property owners, filed a complaint in Wisconsin state court against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, and some of its employees (collectively, “BNSF”). They alleged that BNSF's failure to inspect and maintain a railroad trestle caused the town to flood in July 2007, damaging their property.
BNSF removed the case to federal court, where the parties battled extensively over jurisdiction. BNSF first asserted that there was diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the only non-diverse defendants, two employees from Wisconsin, were joined fraudulently. The district court found the joinder tactical rather than fraudulent, but it accepted BNSF's second ground for jurisdiction: the Class Action Fairness Act, which provides federal jurisdiction over certain class action lawsuits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(5). The plaintiffs moved to remand. After the district court denied that motion, they instead asked for leave to amend their complaint to omit the class allegations. The district court allowed the amendment, noting that it would streamline the litigation. The court also construed the plaintiffs' motion as an implied motion to remand the case, which it granted. The district court explained that its jurisdictional analysis now was based on the amended complaint, and that since the new complaint did not contain class allegations, it did not provide jurisdiction under CAFA.
BNSF filed a timely motion to reconsider. Before the district court ruled on that motion, but within 30 days of the original remand order, BNSF also filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) requesting leave to appeal the district court's order of remand. While the petition was pending, the district court granted the motion to reconsider but reiterated its decision to remand the case to state court. This court then treated BNSF's initially premature petition as timely filed, permitting BNSF to file a supplement addressing the district court's order on reconsideration and asking Moore to respond.
On reconsideration, the district court noted that there are exceptions to the general rule that removal jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal. It treated the amendment of the complaint to eliminate class allegations as analogous to the denial of class certification and explained that district courts were divided on whether the denial of class certification affects CAFA jurisdiction. Compare, e.g., Genenbacher v. CenturyTel Fiber Co. II, LLC, 500 F.Supp.2d 1014, 1016 (C.D.Ill.2007) ( ) with Muehlbauer v. General Motors Corp., No. 05 C 2676, 2009 WL 874511, at *9-10 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 31, 2009) ( ). Given this disagreement, the court concluded that it did not err in remanding the case.
In its petition and supplement, BNSF identifies three alternative grounds for federal jurisdiction, but we need reach only one: jurisdiction under CAFA is secure even though, after removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate the class allegations. The well-established general rule is that jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal, and nothing filed after removal affects jurisdiction. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 293, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938); In re Shell Oil, 970 F.2d 355, 356 (7th Cir.1992) (per curiam); see also Bullard v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 535 F.3d 759, 762 (7th Cir.2008) ( ). CAFA is, at base, an extension of diversity jurisdiction. Even in cases filed originally in federal court, later changes that compromise diversity do not destroy jurisdiction. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428, 111 S.Ct. 858, 112 L.Ed.2d 951 (1991) (per curiam); see also 13E Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3608, at 364-67 (3d ed.2009). And though it is sometimes possible for a plaintiff who sues in federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roberson v. Maestro Consulting Servs. LLC, Case No. 20-CV-00895-NJR
...determined at the time of removal." Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc. , 656 F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing In re Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co. , 606 F.3d 379, 380 (7th Cir. 2010) ). Under CAFA, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases in which (1) the class consists of 100 or more mem......
-
Townsquare Media Inc. v. Brill
...exception recognized in Rockwell International, see 549 U.S. at 474 n. 6, 127 S.Ct. 1397; see also In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry., 606 F.3d 379, 380–81 (7th Cir.2010) (per curiam). For then it is a case not just of the plaintiff's abandoning his federal claims but of his seeking to ......
-
in Touch Concepts, Inc. v. P'ship
...Circuit has concluded that a “post-removal amendment ... does not destroy CAFA jurisdiction.” In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379, 381 (7th Cir.2010) (per curiam). The Seventh Circuit's reasoning drew upon the above-stated jurisdictional principle: CAFA is an extension ......
-
Elftmann v. Vill. of Tinley Park
...jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal, and nothing filed after removal affects jurisdiction." In re Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co. , 606 F.3d 379, 380 (7th Cir.2010). The removing party has the burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists. Morris v. Nuzzo , 718 F.3d 6......
-
Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa's Jurisdictional Provisions
...501 (6th Cir. 2011); Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc. 592 F.3d 805, 806 (7th Cir. 2010); In re Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379, 380 (7th Cir. 2010); United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure
...counsel against allowing a plaintiff's post-removal amendments to affect jurisdiction." Id. (quoting In re Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)). However, "those 'forum-manipulation concerns [] simply do not exist when it is the plaintiff who choose......