United States District Court, C.D. California
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, et al.
EZ-Flo International, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, U.S. District
(In Chambers): ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND 
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, filed on March
6, 2017. (“the Motion, ” Docket No. 11).
Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion and Plaintiffs
filed a Reply. (Docket Nos. 26-27).
Court held a hearing on the Motion on May 1,
2017, and now GRANTS the motion.
The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) does not
include more than 100 named plaintiffs, such that
jurisdiction is unavailable under CAFA's “mass
action” provision. (Docket No. 1-1).
case involves claims by Plaintiffs-insurance companies acting
as subrogees of their insureds-against Defendant EZ-Flo
International concerning defects in Defendant's water
supply lines, which are used to transport water from a water
supply pipe to a plumbing fixture. (SAC ¶ 1).
first action, two insurance companies filed suit on December
26, 2013, against Defendant. The two companies were acting as
subrogees of one insured and sought only $412, 000.
(Declaration of Michael J. Hassen, ¶ 2 (Docket No.
26-1)). On August 13, 2015, the other insurance-company
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in a second action against
Defendant, acting as subrogees of 111 homeowners for claims
totaling $4, 233, 714.81. (Id.). The two cases were
consolidated by the Superior Court on September 2, 2015,
though the Superior Court did not clarify whether the
consolidation was for pretrial purposes only. (Id.
in the second action filed their First Amended Complaint on
February 11, 2016, seeking monetary relief as subrogees for
112 homeowners for claims totaling $4, 714, 824.82.
(Id. ¶ 7). Defendant filed a demurrer, which
was sustained only as to the claims of three homeowners.
(Id. ¶ 9). Following this demurrer, the two
suits sought a combined $4, 987, 351.62. (Id. ¶
January 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, seeking monetary relief as subrogees for 145
homeowners for claims totaling $6, 588, 979.71. (Id.
¶ 14). Defendant's Notice of Removal was then filed
on February 7, 2017. (Docket No. 1).
Class Action Fairness Act
Notice of Removal asserts jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
(Notice of Removal at 1). Under CAFA, the Court has
“original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5, 000,
000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action
in which” there is minimal diversity. 28 U.S.C. §
relevant here, CAFA's “mass action” provision
provides for federal jurisdiction in non-class action cases
that involve “monetary relief claims of 100 or more
persons” that are “proposed to be tried jointly .
. . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(A), (B).
antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which
Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class
actions in federal court.” Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014)
(holding that a defendant's notice of removal under 28
U.S.C. § 1446(a) need include only ...