Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 12-342
No. 13-1077
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cv-00114-JPB; 5:12-cv-00115-JPB)
_______________
Argued:
Decided:
ARGUED: Meir Feder, JONES DAY, New York, New York, for Quicken
Loans Incorporated.
John William Barrett, BAILEY & GLASSER,
LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Phillip Alig, Sara J. Alig,
Roxanne Shea, and Daniel V. Shea.
ON BRIEF: Carte P. Goodwin,
GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Tracy K.
Stratford, P. Nikhil Rao, JONES DAY, New York, New York, for
Quicken Loans Incorporated.
Jonathan R. Marshall, BAILEY &
GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Phillip Alig, Sara
J. Alig, Roxanne Shea, and Daniel V. Shea.
federal
(CAFA),
court
codified
pursuant
in
to
the
relevant
Class
part
at
Action
28
Fairness
U.S.C.
Act
1332(d),
or
the
local
controversy
exception.
The
petitioned
this
Court
for
permission
to
We
requirement
of
the
local
controversy
exception
as
interpreted herein.
I.
Plaintiffs-Appellees
Phillip
Alig,
Sara
J.
Alig,
Roxanne
defined as follows:
All West Virginia citizens at the time of the filing
of this action who, within the applicable statute of
limitations preceding the filing of this action
through the date of class certification, obtained
mortgage loans from Defendant Quicken, and (a) were
provided unsigned loan documents at closing, (b) were
assessed loan discount, courier, or notary fees, or
(c) for whom Quicken obtained appraisals through an
appraisal request form that included an estimate of
value of the subject property.
Plaintiffs
brought
their
lawsuit
against
Defendant-
Appraisals
Hyett.
Unlimited,
Inc.,
Dewey
V.
Guida,
and
Richard
defendants;
Deceptive
Acts
violation
or
of
Practices
the
Act,
West
W.
Va.
Virginia
Code
Unfair
or
46A-6-104,
(m)(1),
against
Quicken
Loans;
unconscionable
contract
against
the
defendant
appraiser
class;
unauthorized
charges, pursuant to West Virginia Code 46-3-109(a) and 46A1-102(7) and (28); breach of contract against Quicken Loans; and
negligence
and
negligence
Plaintiffs
also
plaintiffs
only:
make
two
per
se
claims
against
on
fraud/intentional
behalf
all
of
defendants.
the
misrepresentation
named
against
essence,
Plaintiffs
complain
that
Quicken
Loans
class
of
appraisers,
were
complicit
in
the
scheme.
value.
Then,
after
purportedly
conducting
the
filed
motion
to
remand,
arguing
Thereafter,
that
the
local
Quicken Loans
II.
Our review of the district courts grant of a motion to
remand to state court is de novo.
pursuant
to
CAFA
is
allowed
in
any
civil
class
The statute
defines class
bears
the
appropriate.
burden
of
establishing
that
jurisdiction
is
is
no
debate
jurisdiction
dispute
arises,
exception
to
between
the
that
these
over
this
case
however,
over
whether
CAFA
parties
applies.
If
it
pursuant
is
the
to
local
CAFA.
The
controversy
applicable,
then
the
See 28 U.S.C.
1332(d)(4).
The
elements
of
the
local
controversy
exception
are
as
whom
members
of
the
plaintiff
class
are
seeking
28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(4)(A).
The parties agree that factors one, three, and four of the
local controversy exception are satisfied.
It is the second
to
defendant
agree.
is
There
citizen
is
of
no
dispute
West
that
Virginia,
at
where
least
the
one
action
to
Quicken
Loans,
it
was
improper
for
the
is
waived
because
Quicken
Loans
failed
to
make
it
argued before the district court that the second element of the
local controversy exception was not met.
with
Plaintiffs
that
Quicken
Loans
Salomon
Smith
Barney,
Inc.,
We certainly agree
did
not
pellucidly
U.S.
238,
245
n.2
(2000)
the
local
controversy
exception
was
not
met]
and
no
new
1137,
1145
n.5
(8th
Cir.
2007),
under
the
facts
and
Loans
asserts
that
the
district
court
erred
in
local
defendant.
The
plain
language
of
the
local
the
requirements.
according
satisfied
by
to
28
Quicken
aggregating
U.S.C.
Loans,
claims
this
against
1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II).
language
multiple
cannot
be
defendants.
to
agree
with
Quicken
Loans
Nevertheless, we are
suggestion
that
the
10
at
Under
Moreover,
highlight
defendant
following
putative
to
the
mean
example
class
absurdity
only
that
one
of
defendant,
explicates
action
interpreting
wherein
our
all
set
concern:
twenty
we
at
least
forth
There
named
the
is
defendants,
The remaining
named
defendants.
This
is
an
absurd
reading
of
the
is
Loans
reading
demonstrably
congressional intent.
(4th Cir. 2004).
at
would
odds
also
produce[]
with
clearly
an
outcome
expressed
11
See
controversya
controversy
that
uniquely
affects
A courts
is
an
interstate
class
action[]
involv[ing]
more
Id. at 5, 38.
As this
action
citizens
filed,
of
and
originally
the
the
same
was
filed,
state
principal
where
injuries
all
the
of
the
plaintiffs
are
action
originally
was
stemming
from
the
conduct
12
controversya
controversy
that
uniquely
affects
S. Rep.
putative
class.
Therein
lies
the
problem.
An
unnamed
to
satisfied
consider
the
at
them
least
in
1
deciding
defendant
whether
Plaintiffs
requisite
of
the
had
local
controversy exception.
As such, we are left with the question as to whether the
named defendant appraisersAppraisals Unlimited, Inc., Dewey V.
Guida, and Richard Hyettmeet the at least 1 defendant portion
of the local controversy exception.
Accordingly, we
the
named
defendant
appraisers
satisfy
the
at
least
13
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district
court remanding this case to state court is vacated and this
action is remanded for a determination by the district court as
to whether the named defendant appraisers satisfy the at least
1 defendant requirement of the local controversy exception.
14