Jurisdiction; Whether the proposed class actions should have been removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); 28 USC § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i); Whether the CAFA’s “local controversy” exception applied; § 1332(d)(4)

The court held that the two state-court complaints at issue were properly removed under CAFA where the complaints involved claims of 100 or more people to be tried jointly, and contained “common questions of law or fact.” Plaintiffs-class representatives were coal miners in Kentucky who, despite wearing respirators manufactured by defendant-3M, developed pneumoconiosis, which is caused by inhaling dust particles. They each filed suits in state court against 3M and other manufacturers and retailers, naming hundreds of co-plaintiffs and alleging that the respirators were defective. “3M removed the cases to federal court on CAFA, federal question, and diversity grounds.” The district court remanded the cases to state court. 3M appealed. The issue was whether the cases qualified “as CAFA mass actions.” The one requirement that was in question was whether the representative plaintiffs sought to try claims involving 100 or more people jointly on the basis the claims involved “common questions of law or fact[.]” The court concluded that the complaints met this standard where “they assert[ed] parallel claims on behalf of more than 100 plaintiffs, all proceeding on the theory that the claims are similar enough to merit adjudication in tandem. It should not come as a surprise that CAFA covers them.” The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that their cases may eventually involve different questions of law or fact where, “at most this suggests they might have made an unwarranted proposal for a joint trial grounded on common questions.” It also rejected their assertions based on federalism. The court opined that plaintiffs could have avoided removal by filing separate actions with fewer than 100 plaintiffs and by not proposing a joint trial. They also argued that remand should be affirmed under the CAFA’s “local controversy” exception. But the court found that the exception could not apply because the “‘real target in this action’” was 3M, which is not a Kentucky defendant. Thus, the controversy was not local. Reversed and remanded.