Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
568 U.S. ____ (2013) (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A named plaintiff's pre-certification stipulation that the class will not seek damages exceeding the $5 million jurisdictional threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) is not binding on the proposed class and therefore does not defeat federal jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Standard Fire Insurance Company issued homeowner's insurance policies to Arkansas residents, including Greg Knowles.
- In making certain loss payments, Standard Fire allegedly failed to include a general contractor fee to which policyholders were entitled.
- Knowles sought to represent a class of "hundreds, and possibly thousands," of similarly harmed Arkansas policyholders in a lawsuit against Standard Fire.
- In his initial complaint, Knowles included a formal stipulation that he and the proposed class would not seek to recover total aggregate damages of more than five million dollars.
- Knowles also attached a signed affidavit to the complaint, reiterating his promise not to seek damages for the class in excess of $5,000,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Greg Knowles filed a proposed class action against Standard Fire Insurance Company in an Arkansas state court (court of first instance).
- Standard Fire removed the case to the U.S. District Court, invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
- Knowles (plaintiff) filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, arguing his stipulation kept the amount in controversy below the $5 million federal threshold.
- The District Court found that the actual amount in controversy likely exceeded $5 million but granted the motion to remand based on the plaintiff's stipulation.
- Standard Fire (petitioner) appealed the remand order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (intermediate appellate court), which declined to hear the appeal.
- Standard Fire petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a named plaintiff's pre-certification stipulation limiting damages sought to less than $5 million remove a class action from the scope of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. A named plaintiff's pre-certification stipulation limiting damages does not remove a class action from CAFA's scope. The court reasoned that for jurisdictional purposes, stipulations must be legally binding. A plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of that class before the class is certified by a court. Because Knowles's stipulation did not bind anyone but himself, it did not reduce the actual amount in controversy for the entire putative class. The Court must determine the amount in controversy by aggregating the claims of all proposed class members, as required by the CAFA statute, and a non-binding stipulation by a single plaintiff cannot override that statutory command. Distinguishing this from individual lawsuits where a plaintiff can stipulate to a lower amount, the court noted that in those cases, the stipulation is binding on the only party whose claims are at issue, a feature absent in the pre-certification class action context.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the ability of plaintiffs to use procedural tactics to keep large, multi-state class actions in state courts. It reinforces that a named plaintiff is not the 'master' of the claims of absent class members before the class is officially certified. By requiring federal courts to ignore non-binding, pre-certification damages caps, the ruling strengthens the Class Action Fairness Act's objective of moving major class action litigation into the federal system. Consequently, defendants are more likely to succeed in removing such cases to federal court, even when a complaint facially pleads damages below the $5 million threshold.
