The Class Action Fairness Act provides for federal jurisdiction over “any civil action … in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.” But what constitutes a “proposal” that cases be “tried jointly”? Today, a divided panel of the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ intent is dispositive.
Plaintiffs filed nine separate cases filed in Connecticut state court, alleging state-law personal injury claims stemming from usage of Zantac, each with just under 100 plaintiffs. The complaints included explicit statements that no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction existed. The plaintiffs then requested “consolidation” of the actions, and the defendants removed the case to federal court under the CAFA mass action provision. The district court remanded, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
Adopting the views of three other circuits, and rejecting that of a fourth, the Second Circuit held that “courts evaluating whether a plaintiff proposed a joint trial must center their analysis on whether it was the plaintiffs’ intention to request such a trial,” and that the record showed that the plaintiffs intended to consolidate for pretrial purposes only. Dissenting, Judge Kearse found the record showed that the plaintiffs sought consolidation for all purposes, including trial.
