## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 2790 T RAV ELERS P RO PE RTY C ASU ALT Y an d T RAV ELERS I ND EM NITY C OMPAN Y, P laint if fs -App el lants , v. R O SS G OO D , i nd i vi du al l y a nd o n behal fo fa cl ass , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:11- cv-00694

—Jo an H umphreyL efk ow, Judge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 17, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 27, 2012

Befo re E AST E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd C UDAH Ya nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu i t Judge. This case i s a n appeal fro m the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di scr eti onar y d eci si on notto exer ci se j uri sdic ti on o vera decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent a cti on be cause p arall el state cou rt p roceed ings w ere p en d ing. W e a ffirm th e d i smi ss al, b uto n a di ffer en t g r o und. Af te r e xpl o r i ng2 N o. 11

- 2790

som e o fthe m or e a rca ne bo rder s o ffedera l j uri sdic ti on ba se d o n di ve r si tyo fc i ti ze ns hi p, we co nc l ude thatthe di st r i ctco ur t l ac k ed s ubj ec t m at te r j ur i sdi ct i o n. The pl ainti ff s’ sm al l di sputes with m any c l ai m ants cannot be agg re gat ed to sat i sfy the am ount- i n-c ontr ove rs y requi re m en t of 28 U
. S. C

. § 1332(a).

I. Fac t s an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d The pla i nti ff s- appellan ts ar e tw o affi l i ate d i nsurance com panie s w e w i l l si m plycal l “Tr avel er s. ” They fi l ed thi s federa l act i on s eek i ng a decl ar ato ry ju d gm ent that they had no duty t o defe nd their i nsured, Roga n Sho es, In c ., ina c las s a c tio n su it b ro u gh t a ga in st it inIl l i n ois sta te c ou rtforvi ol ati ons ofthe federa l Fa i r and A ccurat e Credi t Tr ansact i ons A ct of 2003 , 15 U
. S. C. § 1 681c ( g)

. That act prohibi ts busi ness es fro m incl ud i ng o n sal es re cei pts th e ex pi r at i o n dat e o r mor e th anthe l as t fi ve di g i ts o fthe pu rchas er ’ s cr edi t o r debi t c ar d, author i zi ng dam age s o f u p to $1 ,00 0 p er u n law fu l re c eip t. § 16 81 n (a) . O n b e h alf ofa c las s, c u sto m erRoss Good sued Rog an S hoes i n sta te cour t forvi ol ating the actbypri nti ng 38 7, 291 re cei pts displ aying the expi ra ti on d ates o fhi s a nd o thercl ass m embe r s’ c ha r g e ca r ds i n 2 00 8 an d 2 00 9. Go o d s o ug ht st atut o r y da m ag es f o r c l as s m embe r s i n the s ta g g er i ng am ou nt of $ 3 87 m il li on. Rogan Shoes ten d ered Go od ’s s ui tt o T r a v e l e r s f o r de fe ns e p ur s ua ntt o i t s l i ab i l i ty i ns ur an ce po l i ci es . Tra ve l er s den i ed co ve r ag e, l ea ving Rogan Shoe s t o i ts own devi ces. Ro g anS ho es e ve ntua ll y s et tl ed wi thGo o d a nd the cl ass f or$16 m i l l i on, bu t not in cash, o r at l eas t no t Rog anN o. 11

- 2790 3 S ho es ’ c as h. The s et tl ementa g r ee m ents pec i fi ed th atthe j ud g men two ul d b e sat i s fi e d o nly thr o ugh pr o c e e ds fro m Roga n Sho es’ i nsurance pol i ci es w i th Tra vel er s, w i th the exce pti on o fan up- fro nt ca sh p aym ent by Rog an S ho es o f$ 50 , 00 0 to c o ve r Go o d’ s l eg al co st s. As pa r t o fthe se tt l ementag r ee m en t, Rog anSho es a ss i g ne d t o the pl ainti ff s a l l o fi ts “cl ai m s a gainst a n d ri ghts to paym ents from Trav elers” un d er the p oli cies, ex cep ting th e store’s c l a i m fo r a t t o r ne y fe e s i n de fe nd i ng the s ui t a nd i ts cl ai m f orr ei m burse m ent o fi ts $50, 000 ou t- of

- pocket pay m en t. The s ta te trial c o ur t appr o ve d the s et tl ement on J uly1, 20 10. On Januar y 4, 20 11, Good fi l ed a s up ple m entar y a cti on i n the s ta te c o ur t to di scov erTr av el er s’ a ss et s f o r the sa tis fa c tio n of h is jud gm en t a ga in st R og an Sh oe s. In I l l i noi s, such a cti ons ar e ca l l ed “ c itat i on” proce edi ngs. Se e 7 35 I LC S 5/2- 1402
. The st ate co urt ci tat i on was ser ved on Trave l er s’ ag ent tw o days l ate r. The ci tat i on sum m oned Trav el er s t o c ou rt to appear i n cour t o n Feb

ruar y 1 to pro du c e severa l cat ego ri es ofdocum ents re l evant to the i nsurance pol i ci es Trave l er s had i ssued to R og an Sh oe s. O n Jan u ar y 3 1, T r a v e ler s filed th is action i n fed eral district court see king a d eclarat o ry j ud gm ent that insuranc e p olic i es i t had i ssued to Roga n Shoe s did not cove r Good’s sta tutory cl ai m s base d o n the c re d it car d rec ei pts. The di str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d T ravelers’ com p lai nt on th e b a s is of Wil ton/ B ri ll hart abste nti on, unde r w h ich a federa l di str i ct c ourthas disc re ti on t o dism iss a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent a cti on w hen para l l elproc ee d in gs ar e pendingi n sta te cour t. S ee Wi l t on v. Se ve n F al l s Co. , 515 U .S. 27 7 (1 9 95 ); Bri l l har tv.4 N o. 11

- 2790 E xces s Ins
. Co
. of Am er ica , 316 U
. S. 491 (1942). T ravel e rs ha s a pp e a l e d, a r g uingtha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tab us e d i ts di sc r et i o n b y dism i ss i ngi ts a ct i o n. Dur i ngo r ala r g um ent we or dered supple m entalbr i efi ng o n th e issue of su bj e c t mat t e r j ur i s di c t i o n. W e di r e c t e d the pa r t i e s t o add re ss w h etherthe case sa ti sfi es the a m ount- i n-c ontr ov e r s y r e qu i r e men tf o r di v e r s i t y j ur i sdic t i o n, 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 332( a) , i n l i ght o fthe f act that Rogan Sh oe s had ass i gn ed i ts i nter est s in i ts Trave l er s pol i ci es to Good an d h is fe llow cla ss m em b er s, n on e of w h om ind ivid u ally cl ai m a shar e o fm or e than $75 , 000.

II. Dis cu s s i on To i nvoke the dive rs i ty j uri sdic ti on o fthe federa l c ou rt s, a p ar ty m u s t e s t a b lish bo th th at d ive rs ity of cit izenshi p i s co m ple te and that “the m att eri n contr ove rs y exceeds the s um o r val ue o f$75, 000, excl usi ve of i nter estand cos ts. ” 2 8 U.S.C . § 13 32( a)

. Com ple te d i v e r s i t y i s p r e s e n ti n th i s c a s e . B o th T r a v e l e r s c o mp an ies are C on n ec tic u t c or p or at ion s t h at als o h av e t h eir p rin c ip al p lac es of bu sin es s in th at st at e. G oo d is a c itiz en of Illin ois , a n d R o ga n Sh oe s is a W isc on sin corp or atio n w i th i ts pri nci pal pl ace ofbusi ness i n W i sc o n s i n . T h e a mo u n t
- i n - c o n t r o v e r s y r e q u i r e me n t, h o weve r, bar s the exer ci se offedera l j uri sd icti on her e. W e addr es s fi r stthe g en er alr ul e ag ains t ag g r eg at i ng di ffer en t par ti es ’ cl ai m s to m ee t th e amoun t i n contr ove rs y a nd so m e o f i ts excepti ons. W e then tur n to i ssues thatar i se fro m the f act that Rogan S hoes as si gned i ts c l ai m s a gains t Tr av el er s to the pl aint i ffc l as s, a ndN o. 11

- 2790 5 ad d re ss h ow an ins u re r inT ra ve ler s’ p os itio n co u ld obt ai n a federa l f or um f orsuch di sputes.

A. The Rul eAgai ns tAggregat i on and i t s Except i ons N o i nd i vi du aldefendant, i ncl u ding Rogan S hoes , has a cl ai m f o r mor e th an$ 75 , 00 0 ag ains t Travel er s. The gener alr ule i s that the cl ai m s o fm ult i ple l i tiga nts ca nno t be a g g r eg at ed to r ea chthe j ur i sdi ct i o na l a m o unt i n con tr ov er sy. S ee Snyder v. Harris , 39 4 U.S

. 33 2, 33 5 (19 69 ). Th e a n ti-a gg re ga tio n ru le a p p l ies bo th to ca se s in wh i c h mu l t i pl e p l a i n t i ff s s e e kt o c o mb i n e th e i r c l a i ms aga i nst a s in gl e defendant, se e Thom son v. Ga skil l , 31 5 U .S. 44 2 (1 94 2), an d to t h o s e b ro u gh t b y a sin gle pla i nti ff agai nst m ult i ple def endants, se e M iddle Tenne ss eeNews Co. v. Ch a rnel of Cincinnati, Inc. , 25 0 F
. 3d 1077, 10 81 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ; se e a l so 14AA Charl es A l an W rig h t, A rt h u r R . M iller & E d w ar d H . C oo p er , Fe de r al P rac tice a nd P roc edu re, § 3704, at56 6- 95 ( 2011 ) ( here i nafter “W right & M il ler”) (coll ectin g cases ). Trave l er s co ntends thatther e i s no need fo r agg re gati on in thi s ca se b ecause “fro m Tra vel er s’ per specti ve, th ere i s o nl y o ne cl ai m , byi ts i nsured, f orthe $16 m i l l i on j ud gm en t en ter ed aga i nst i t. ” In supp or t o fthi s theor y, Trave l er s ci tes M e r i dian Se cu r i ty Ins uranc eCo. v. Sa dows ki, 44 1 F
. 3d 53 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) , i n whi cha n i ns ure r s o ug ht a decla ra tory j ud gm ent that i ts l i abi l i ty pol i cy did not cove r a su i t under the Tel ephone Consum erPro tect i on Ac tth e n p e n d i n gi n s t a t e c o u r ta g a i n s ti t s i ns ur e d

. We hel d that the cas e s ati sfi ed the am ount- i n-c ontr ove rs y6 N o. 11

- 2790

re q u ire m en t. T h e a n ti-a gg r e g at ion ru le “ d oe s n otap p ly to a federalde cl ar at o r y -j udg m en t ac ti o n b etwee n a sing l e pl aint i ff an d a s i ng l e defen dan t, j us t be ca us e th e uni ta r y c o nt r o ve r syb etwee n the se par ti es r efl ec ts the sum o fm any s m al l erco ntro ver si es . ” Id. a t 53 9, c i ting H unt v. Washington StateA pple A dvert is ing Co m m ’n , 43 2 U
. S. 333, 347-48 (1977 ). Th e de c i s i v e d i ffe r e nc e b e t we e n thi s c a s e a nd M e r i di an Se cu r i ty i s that a t the ti m e the insur erfi l ed the decl ar ato ry j u d gm en t a c tio n in t h at ca se , th e in su re d ’s a rg u ab le rig h t t o re c ov er u n d er it s p olic y w as st ill com p let ely i t s o wn . N o a s s i g n me n th a d b e e n ma d e . B y t he t i me Trave l er s fi l ed thi s a cti on, however, R og an Shoes had al re ady as si gned i ts cl ai m s t o the m em ber s o fthe Good cl ass , and no ind i vi du alcl ass m em b er had a c l ai m f or m or e than $75 , 000. A c c or d in g t o T ra ve ler s, th e fa c t o f an as sig n m en t in thi s ca se i s i m m ate ri albec ause the a ssi gn m en t “does no t cha n ge w hose cl ai m i t i s. ” But thati s pre ci sely what an ass i gnm ent doe s. I t t ra nsfer s o ne per so n’s pro perty, i nt e r e s t, or ri g ht s t o a no the r . On c e R o g a n S ho e s ma de th e assign m en t of rights, th is w as no l ong e r a “ u nitary contr ove rs y” between the i nsurerand i ts i nsured. I t had be co m e a mul ti

- par tydi spu te b etwee n Tr av el er s an d th ou sa n d s o f cla ss cla im an ts
. M e r i di a n S ec ur i ty is i napp osi te. Forpurposes o fthi s ca se, the m os t rel evantexce pti on t o th e g e n e r a l r u l e a g a i n s ta g g r e g a t i o n i s t ha t th e c l a i ms of co- parti es m ay be a dd ed to gether w hen theyhave a “co m m on and undivi ded i nter est ” in a “ si ngl e t i tl e o rN o. 11

- 2790 7 ri ght. ” S n y d erv. Harris , 3 94 U. S

. 3 32 , 3 35 ( 19 69 )

. Ca n the re l a t i v e l y s mal l c l a i ms o fthe s e c l a s s me mbe r s b e a g g re g ated as “c o m m o n a nd un di vi ded” i nt er es ts i n a “s in gle tit le or righ t” ? T ra ve ler s d ec lin e d t o a d d re ss th is questi on in i ts supp lem entalm em or andu m , and i t t oo k that c ou rs e a t i ts peri l

. J uri sdic ti onalo bj ecti ons cannot be for fei ted o r w ai ved, o fco urse , f orthi s co urt has a n “i nd ependent o bl i gat i on t o sat i sfy i tse l fthatfedera l subj ect m att erj uri sdic ti on e xi sts
. ” Sm i t h v

. Am e r i ca n Gen e r al Li

f e & Acc i de nt Ins. C o. , 33 7 F
. 3d 888, 89 2 ( 7th Cir

. 20 03)

. The co urt need not bend ove r back w ar d s to const ruct al ternati ve theo ri es to persuade i tse lfthat subj ect m att erj uri sdic ti on e xi sts , se e Tr ave l e rs Inde m . Co. v. D ingw el l , 88 4 F
. 2d 6 29, 63 7 ( 1stCi r. 19 89) , but si nce the di str i ct c ourtconsi dered the cas e a nd we rai sed thi s i ssue, we add re ss i t her e. The a nt i

- ag g r eg at i o n r ul e ha d i ts o r i g i n in a c as e i nvolving the ap p ell ate j uris d ic t ion of th e Sup rem e C ou rt r athe r tha n the o r i g i na l s ubj ectmatt erj ur i sdi ct i o n o fthe dist ri ct c ourt s. S ee O l iver v . Alex a nd er, 31 U
. S. ( 6 Pet
. ) 14 3 (18 32 ). M u c h lat er , in 18 93 , “th e o rig in al A lexa nd er co nstr ucti on o f[ the Cour t’ s] appel l ate j uris d icti on was appli ed to the j uri sdic ti onal

- am ount r equi re m ent for federa l tr i alco urts
. ” Zahn v. Inte r nat i onal Pape rCo. , 41 4 U
. S. 2 91 , 2 94 n. 3 ( 1973 ) , ci ti ng Wal t e rv . Nor t he as t e r n R. R. Co. , 1 47U. S

. 3 70 , 3 73 ( 18 93 )

. A p p arently, l i tt l e th o ug ht w as gi ven t o w h et h er“di ffer ent a ggr ega ti on pol i ci es m i ght b e ofgr eat eri m port ance foro ri gi nal federa l c o u r tj u r i s d i c t i o n th a n f o r a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . ” 1 4 AA W ri ght & M i l l er § 3704, a t 59 6. By 1 91 6, ho wev er, the C ou rtw as ab le t o d es c rib e t h e a n ti-a gg re ga tio n p rin c ip le8 N o. 11

- 2790

The ge ne ra l r ul e i n Zahn has be enm odi fi ed i n r es pects no t 1 m ater ial here

. For ex am ple, u nd er the s up plem ental j uris dicti on st a tu te , 2 8 U.S. C. § 1367, i fone plai nti ff’ s cl aim s ati sfie s the am ount
- i n- c ont ro ver sy requi re m en t, the s m al l erc l ai m s of oth er p lain tiffs can b e joine d as lon g as d iv e r sity of citizensh ip rem ain s com p lete an d all claim s are p art o f the sam e case o r c o n t ro v er sy . Exxon M obi l C orp. v. A l l apat t ah Se rvi ce s, Inc. , 5 4 5 U .S. 5 4 6 , 54 9 (20 0 5 ); S tr om berg M et al Wo rk s, In c. v. P res s M ec hani cal, Inc. , 77 F .3d 92 8 , 93 0 -3 2 (7t h C ir . 19 9 6 ). as a “s et tle d ru le” of d ive rs ity j u ris d ict ion, P inel v . P inel , 24 0 U
. S

. 5 94, 5 96 ( 19 16 ) , a nd i t ce r ta i nl y i s so no w. The rul e i s: W hen t w o orm or e pl ai nti ff s, having s eparat ean d di s t i nc tde m ands , u n i t e f o r c o n v e n i e n c e a n d e c o n o my in a si ngl e s uit, i t i s e sse nti althatthe dem and ofea ch be of th e r equi si te j uri sdic ti onalam ount; but w hen seve ra l pl ai nti ff s uni te to enf or ce a si ngl e t i tl e o r ri ght, i n w hi ch theyhave a co m m o n a nd un div ided interest, it is en ou gh if th eir int er es ts co llec tiv ely eq u al t h e jur isd ict ion al a m ou n t. Zahn , 4 1 4 U. S

. a t2 9 4 ( e mpha s e s a dde d) , quo t i ng Troy Bank v. G. A. W

hi t e he ad & Co. , 222 U
. S. 39, 40-41 (1911). 1 The anti

- agg re gat i on rul e thus dist i ngui shes b etween “se parat e a nd di stin c t int er est s, ” which ca nnot be ag gr egat ed to r each the j uri sdic ti onalm i ni m um , and “co m m on a nd u ndi vi ded i nt e r e s t s , ” wh i c h c a n b e a g g r e g a t e d. The Suprem e Cour t has o pined thatthe “l ower co urts ha ve d evelop e d largely w orkable stan d ard s for d eterm i ni ngwhenc l ai m s ar e j o int an d c o m m o n, a nd th erefore entit le d t o be aggregat ed , and w he n th ey areN o. 11

- 2790 9

se p ar at e a n d d ist in c t a n d th er efo re n otag gr eg ab le.” Sn yd er, 394 U
. S. at 341. Oth er cou rts an d com m en t a t o rs h av e t ak en a les s s an gu in e v iew . See , e . g. , M or r i s on v. All s t at eInde m . Co. , 22 8 F
. 3d 1255 , 12 62 (1 1th C i r. 20 00) ( noti ng “per vasi ve cri ti ci sm o fthe ‘ separ ate and dis ti n ct’ ve r su s ‘ co m m on a nd un di vi ded’ di st i nc ti o n a s ar ca ne an d co n fu sin g” ); Eaglev. A m erica n Te l

. an d Te l

. Co. , 76 9 F. 2d 541, 54 6 ( 9th Ci r. 19 85) ( “The div i ding l i ne is not c lea r.”); Loc al D i v. No. 71 4, Am algam at e d Tr a nsi tU ni on , v. G re aterPo rt land Transi t D is t. , 58 9 F
. 2d 1, 10 (1stCi r. 19 78) ( “The dis ti nctio n betw een ‘ a co m m on a nd undivi ded in te re st ’ a n d ‘se p ar at e a n d d ist in c t’ c laim s is n oten tir ely cl ear . ”) , o ver rul ed on o thergr ounds by Jackson Tra n sit Aut h. v. Lo ca l D i v. 12 85, Am algam at e d Tr ans i tU ni on , 45 7 U .S. 15 (19 82 ); A etna C a s . & S u r. C o . v. Gra ves , 381 F. S up p. 11 59, 11 62- 63 ( W

. D. La. 19 74) ( “W e a l so reali ze th at th e rules on aggregation of claim s to sa tisfy th e re q u ire m en ts of m in im u m a m ou n t inc on tr ov er sy ‘.

. . tu rn on a m ys tify in g c on c ep tu al t es t.’ ”) (e llip sis in o rig in al), q u ot in g W rig h t, Law of Fe deral Co urts § 36, at12 1; 14AA W ri ght & M i l l er§ 37 04, at60 0- 01 ( “te rm s s uch as ‘com m on’ an d ‘several’ are poor w o rd s for a subj ect m att er j uri sdic ti on test

— o r anythi ng el se f or th at m atter — since they hav e li ttle or no c le a r and ascertainab le m ean ing.”) ( som e intern al quo tations om itted ). T he dich otom y betw een com m on an d un d ivi d ed i nt eres ts an d se p ar at e a n d d ist in c t in te re st s is w or ka b le in the e asy, para dig m cas es. Fo r exam ple , wh er e there i s a “si ngl e ind i vi sibl e r es, su ch as an es tat e” or“a pi ece ofpro perty( the class i c exam ple ) , ” i t m ake s s ense to th i nko fc o - par ti es ’ c l ai m s to the r es a s “ comm o n a nd10 N o. 11

- 2790 und i vi ded

. ” G ilm a n v . B H CSec., Inc., 104 F. 3d 14 18, 14 23 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) , quo t i ng Bis hop v. Ge ne r al M ot ors Corp. , 92 5 F
. S upp. 2 94, 2 98 ( D. N
. J
. 1 99 6)

. Co nv er se l y, wher e th e pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s ar e “co gni zabl e, cal cul abl e, an d corr ectab le i nd i vi du al l y, ” Gib s on v. Chrys l e rCorp. , 2 6 1 F
. 3 d 9 27, 94 5 (9 th C i r . 200 1),

— sa y, per sonali nj uri es ar i si ng fro m mas s t o rt s

— t hey a re cl ear l y “ separ ate and dis ti nct” an d ma y n o t b e a g g r e g a t e d t o me e t th e a mo u n t i n c o ntr ov er sy . Th u s in th e fo u n d at ion al Troy Bank ca se , the tw o pla i nti ff s co uld notag gr egate thei r cl ai m s under separ ate p ro m i sso rynot es m ade payabl e bythe defendant, but they coul d aggreg ate thei r cl ai m s ba sed o n a ve nd or ’ s l i en thattheyo w ned j oi ntl y. 22 2 U.S

. at41
. I n c l o se r c as es , the di st incti o n b etwee n c o m m o n a nd und i vi ded i nter est s a nd separat e a nd di stinct inter est s i s l ess useful. I t has pro ven par tic u l ar l y s l i pp er y in case s i nv o l vingi ns ur an ce c l ai m s. Fo r e xa m pl e, i n M otoris ts M ut ual Ins . Co. v. Si m ps on , 40 4 F
. 2d 511 ( 7th Ci r. 19 68 ), an i nsured had cause d an acci dent tha t re sul ted i n dam age to a r en ta l v eh i cl e an d the de ath o fi ts dr i ve r . The i nsured had bee n f oun d liabl e t o both the decease d dr i ve r ’ s wi do w and th e o wnero fthe r en te d v eh i cl e. The i nsurerth en so ught a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that i t was no t r equi r ed to c o ve r l i ab i l i tyt o the w idow f o r the death o r to the owner f orthe proper ty dam age . U nd er th e po l i cy, ne i th erty pe o fl i ab i li tywas s uffi ci en t al o ne to m ee t th e a m ou n t-in -c on tr ov er sy req u ire m en t, b u t if th e y w e r e c o mb i n e d , th e y w o u l d e x c e e d th e min i mu m. The dis tr i ct c ourt fo und thatag gr ega ti on o fthe re l i ef sought a ga i nst tw o cl ai m ants w as appropri ate bec a u s e b o th c l a i ms a r o s e u n d e r th e sa me i n s t r u me n t
. WeN o. 11

- 2790 11

r ev er se d, r ea so ni ngthat the c l ai m s o fthe wi do w and the v ehi cl e o w ner w er e s epara te and dist i nct, s o that the insurer ’ s potenti all i abi l i ty to them would have been se ve ra l rat h er th an j oin t. Id. at 51 3, q uoti ng Thom s on v. G askill, 31 5 U.S

. 44 2, 44 7 ( 1942 ) ( “A ggr ega ti on o fpl ai nti ff s’ claim can not be m ad e m erely b e c au se th e claim s are d er ive d from a sin gle ins tr u m en t.” ); ac c or d , e . g. , Cre ns haw v. Gr e atCe nt r al Ins . Co. , 482 F .2 d 1255, 1259-60 (8th C ir. 1973 ) ( denyi ng ag gr ega ti on o fcl ai m s a ga in st i nsurance com pany on uninsur ed m oto ri st pol i cy by parents o f decease d for w ro ngful death and b y thei r daughter f or h er ow n p er so n al inj u rie s); E agle S ta r Ins. Co . v. M a ltes , 313 F.2 d 7 78, 78 1- 82 ( 5th Ci r. 19 63) ( denyi ng ag gr ega ti on to t hree pl ai nti ff s who sued i nsureraftero btaini ng se parate j ud gm en ts agains t insu red ); J effr ey L
. Ren sberge r, The Am ount in Cont r ove rs y: U nde rs t andi ng t heRul e s of A gg regat i on , 2 6 Ar i z . S t
. L. J
. 9 2 5 , 9 4 5 & n
. 1 3 4 ( 1 994) ( “Co ur ts a l so wi l l no t ag g r eg at e cl ai m s w he n ani nsu red sues f o r c o v e r a ge on a loss or an insu rer sues f or a d eclaration of non -coverage.”) ( coll ectin g cases ). Other cour ts have tak en di ffer ent a pp ro aches. In P ho enix Ins. C o . v. Wo o ls ey, 287 F.2d 531 , 532 (10th Cir. 1961 ) , f orexam ple , the cour t a l l owed ag gr ega ti on o f cl ai m s o fni ne cr edi tor s t o w hom an i nsured had separat ely ass i gned proc eeds o fa fi re i nsurance pol i cy, pr es um ab l y b ec au se the c r edi to r s cr o ss - as si g ne d t o o ne ano the r the i r i nt e r e s t s i n the p r o c e e ds “ s o tha te ach m i ght s hare pro r ata i n the re cove ry a ga i nst the defen dan ts a nd .

. . agr ee d t o wai ve a g ains t ea cho th era ny pri or i ti es w hi ch m i ght e xi st betwe en them

. ” S ee al so M a nu fa ctu rers Ca sua ltyIns. C o . v. Co k er, 21 9 F
. 2d 63 1, 63 312 N o. 11

- 2790 ( 4th Ci r . 1 95 5) ( i n de cl ar at ory ju dgmenta ct i o n b r o ug ht bya ut o insur erf o r de cl ar at i o n o fno n- l i ab i l i ty, a l l o wi ng agg re gat i on of c lai m s o f23 chi l dren i nj ured i n schoo l bu s accid en t on grou nd that allcla im s “arise out of a single i ns tru m en t”). Confr onti ng the ag gr ega ti on qu es ti on in the i nsurance c o n t e x t, s e v e r a l c i r c ui t s h a v e a t t e mp t e d t o d i s t i l l s o me consi ste nt m eani ng fro m the confusi on . In a cl ass act i on brou gh t by au tom obile insu red s against their i ns ure rs to re cove r the di m i ni shed val u e of thei r vehi cl es after th eywer e r epa ired, the El ev en thCi r cui t he l d tha t th e pla i nti ff s’ cla i m s co uld notbe agg re gat ed beca use they w er e “ asserti ng r i ghts ar i si ng fro m thei r i nd i vi du al i nsurance pol i ci es, and i fsucce ssful, they [ w oul d] r eco ver the a m ount o fexce ssi ve prem i um s e ach pai d und er hi s o wn po l i cy. ” M or r i s on v. Al l s t at eInde m . Co. , 22 8 F
. 3d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )

. T he c o ur ta do pt e d a f or m ula

ti on o fthe dist i nc tio n betw een “ separ ate and dis ti nct” i nteres ts and “co m m on a nd undivi ded ” inter est s fi rs t ar ti cul at ed i n E agle S ta r by J ud ge Tuttl e forthe Fi fth C irc u it. U n d er th is t es t, ag gr eg at ion i s p er m itt ed “o n ly i n thos e s i tuati ons w here ther e i s no t o nl y a co m m on fu n d from w hich the p lai nt iffs seek rel ief, bu t w he re the p l a i nt i ff s a l s o h a v e a j o i nti nt e r e s ti n tha tfun d, su chtha t i fpl aint i ff s’ r i g ht s ar e no t affected b y the ri ghts ofco - pla i nti ff s, then ther e can be no ag gr ega ti on . ” Id. at 1262

- 63, quoting EagleSt ar, 31 3 F. 2d at 781. In other wo r ds , the E agle S ta r rul e i s that the cl ai m s o fco - parti es a r e “ c o mm o n a nd u nd i v i de d”

— and thus ca n be agg re gat e d

— o nl y whe r e e a c h c l a i m ( 1 ) i s pa r t o f a “ com m on fund” a nd ( 2 ) c o ul d n o tb e a dj ud i c a t e d o n a n i nd i v i du al basi s without a ffecting the inter est s ofthe othe r cl ai m ants.N o. 11

- 2790 13 A t l eas t fi ve othe r ci rcui ts have endors ed the EagleSt ar f or m ula ti on o r i ts functi onalequi val ent. S ee Evere t tv. Ver izon Wi r e l e s s , Inc ., 4 60 F. 3d 818, 82 4 ( 6th Ci r. 20 06) ( “A ggr ega ti on i s per m i tte d ‘where ther e i s noton l y a co m m o n fun d fr o m whi chthe pl aint i ff s se ekr el i ef, b ut wher e th e pl aint i ff s a lso havea j oi nti nt e r e s ti n thatf und, su chtha t i fpl aint i ff s’ r i g ht s ar e no t affecte d b y the r i g ht s o fc o - pl aint i ff s th enthe r e ca n b e no a g g r eg at i o n. I n other w or d s, the obl i gat i on t o the pl ai nti ff s m ust be a j oi nt o ne. ’ ”) ( em phasi s in or i gi nal ) , quoting E agle St ar, 313 F. 2 d at78 1; In re Ford M otor Co./ C it ibank (South Dako t a), N. A. , 26 4 F. 3 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c l a i ms ofcar dh ol der pl ai nti ffs ag ai nst c re ditcar d com panie s ar i si ng o ut o fthe ter m i nati on o fa p u rchase r ebat e p ro gr am co u l d n otbe ag gr eg at ed as co m m on an d u n d ivi ded i nter est s be cause th ey “do not i m pli cate a
‘ si ngl e ind i vi sibl e r es, ’ and coul d be a dj ud i cate d on an ind ivi d ua l bas is becau se th e con soli d ated plaint iffs ( an d put at i ve c l as s m embe r s) ha ve no c o m m on and un di v i de d int e r e s ti n a c c r uingr e b a t e s u nd e r the p r ogr am .”); M a rtin v . Fran k lin C a pit a l C o rp., 25 1 F
. 3d 1284, 1292 ( 10th Cir

. 200 1) ( “[ A ] co m m on inter esti n a poo l o f fund s i s n ot the type o fi nter estthatper m i ts agg re gat i on ofcl ai m s under the ‘ com m on fund ’ doctr in e. Each cl ass m em berco uld s ue se parat ely forpunitive dam age s a n d h a v e h i s r i g h tt o r e c o v e r y d e t e r mi n e d w i th o u ti mpl i ca tingthe r i g ht s o fe ve r yothe r pe r so n c l ai m i ng such dam age s. ”) ( ci tat i on and s om e quotati on m ar ks om i tte d ); Gil m an , 10 4 F
. 3d at 1423 ( hol ding that cl ai m s o f pla i nti f f

- i n ve st or s ag ain st d efe n d an t-brok er age f or i l l ega l l y c harg i ng “o rderflo w paym ents” o n sec uri ti es14 N o. 11

- 2790
tr ansact i ons coul d not be aggr ega ted be cause they “ do n ot i mpl i c a t e a ‘ s i ng l e i nd i v i s ib l e r e s , ’ a nd could bea dj u d ica te d on an ind ivid u al b as is” ); D i e rks v. Thom ps on , 414 F. 2d 453, 45 6 ( 1stCi r. 19 69) ( ap proving ag gr ega ti on ofm ultip le pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s t o re ach j uri sdic ti onal am ount be cause they “ar e s eek i ng to esta b li sh a tr ust fu n d a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d fr o m in d i v i du a l c a s h c l a i ms aga i nst the defendants” a nd the “f act th at the i nd i vi du al pla i nti ff s’ bene fi ci ali nter est s m ay be offi xed propor ti on does not var y the f act that the e xi ste nce o fa si ngle tr ust res is of com m on im p ortan ce”). I n acco rd with o ur co l l eagues in thes e o therci rcui ts, w e a dopt the E agle S ta r ru le: w e “ allo w ag gr eg at ion on ly i n thos e s i tuati ons w here ther e i s no t o nl y a co m m on fund fr o m whi chthe pl aintif fs se ekr el i ef, b utwher e th e pla i nti ff s also h ave a j oi nt i nter esti n that fund , such that

. . . p lainti ff s’ r i ghts ar e . . . affecte d by the r i ghts of co- p lai nt iffs. ” 313 F.2d at 7 8 1. U nlike the m ore ab s t r a c tt e r mi n o l o g y fr o m TroyBank a nd Zahn , i t has the v i r t ue o fma k i ngthi s c a s e f a i r l y e a s y t o r e s o l ve. Fi rst, the pot enti alpro ceeds fro m the Trave l er s pol i ci es d o not q ua li fy as a “com m on fun d

. ” T h e e xisten ce of a

“ c o mmo n fu n d ” d e p e n d s o n th e “ n a t u r e o f the r i g ht as se r te d, no t whethe r s ucc es sfulv i ndi ca ti on of the ri ght wil l l ead to a si ngl e poo l o fm oneythatwill be al l oca ted am ong the pl ai nti ff s. ” Gil m an , 10 4 F
. 3d at 1427
. Thu s, a com m on fund exis ts w hen “pl ai nti ff s s hare [ ] a preex i s t i n g ( p r e - l i t i g a t i o n ) i n t e r e s t i n th e s u bj e c t o ft he l i ti gat i on. ” Id. In thi s ca se, the Good cla ss m em b er s d id not shar e a p re -exi sting i nter esti n re cove ryag ai nst R o g a n S h o e s o r i t s i n s u r e r s . T h e c l a s s me mb e r s ’ c l a i msN o. 11

- 2790 15 al l a r o se fr o m s epa r at e tran sa ct i o ns . As the S ec o nd Ci r cui t sa i d i n Gil m an : “Ther e i s no fund

. The cl aim r emai ns o ne o n b eh al fo fs epa r at e i ndi vi dual s f o r the damag e su ffer ed bye ac h due t o the a l l eg ed co nduc t o fthe defe nd ant. ” Id. ( el l i pses o m i tte d), quoting Rock D ri l l i ng Loc al U ni on No. 17v. M as on & Hange rCo. , 21 7 F
. 2d 687, 695 (2d Cir. 1954). Eve n i fTra ve l er s co ul d m ee t th e co m m o n fund e l ement ofthe E agle S ta r f or m ula ti on, the cl ai m s o fthe Good cl ass m em ber s a l so f ai l the seco nd el em ent b ecause each c l ai m ant’ s “ ri ghts are notaffecte d by the r i ghts ofco - pla i nti ff s. ” 3 13 F. 2d at 781. Und e r the t e r ms o fthe s e t t l e men ta g r e e men tb e t ween Good and Rogan S hoes , e ac h cla ss m em b er w ou ld re cei ve a pro r ata ( p er r ecei pt) shar e o fthe $16 m i l l i on re cove rythati s s ought, w ith a m axi m um award of $1, 000 re gar d les s ofthe num bero funl aw ful re cei pts that R og an S hoes i ssued any i nd i vi du al

. A fterat torney fee s a re d ed u c te d , rou gh ly $ 1 0.6 7 m illion w ou ld rem ain i n the pot. Because ofthe $1, 000 cap o n i nd i vi du al aw ar ds, in order f orany one cl ass m em ber ’ s cl ai m to be a ffecte d by the cl ai m s o fot h er cla ss m em ber s, atl eas t 10, 667 cla im ants w oul d have t o subm i t v i abl e cl ai m s. I s th a tl i k e l y ? We d o n o tkn o w. I n all c ase s, the partyas ser ti ng federa l j uri sdic ti on has th e b u r d e n of p roof to show that j urisd iction i s p rop er. E.g
. , M cNuttv. Ge ne r al M o to rs A cc ept anc eCorp. , 298 U
. S. 17 8 , 1 8 9 ( 1 9 3 6 )

. Th e “ pr o po ne nt o f j ur i s di c t i o n maybe c alle d on to p ro ve fac ts th at d et e r m i n e th e a m ou n t in co nt r o ve r sy, ” an d m us t do s o b y a pr epo nd erance o fthe16 N o. 11

- 2790

ev id en c e. M e r i di an Secur ity, 441 F.3d at 541

. H ere, T ravelers ha s no t do ne s o . On the b a s i s o f the s e t t l e men tag re em en t a lon e, w e c an n o t co n c lu d e t h at it is m or e like ly than not that the cl ass w i l l produce m or e t h an 10, 667 c l a i man t s a nd , i f s o , tha t “ i f o ne pl a i nt i ff c a nn o to r does no t co l l ec t hi s sh ar e, the sh ar es o fthe r emai ni ng pla i nti ff s [ w oul d be] i ncre ase d.” S ee Sel le rs v. O ’Co nnell, 701 F. 2d 575, 57 9 ( 6th Ci r. 19 83) ( “W here a group of pla i ntiffs l i ti gat e ind i vi du alcas h cl ai m s the am ount o f whi c h r e mai n un a ffe c t e d b y the r e s ul t s o b t a i ned by fello w p lain tiffs , th e litig an ts m ay n ota gg re ga te th eir claim s w he n allegi ng j urisd iction.”) ( cit a tions om itted ); Kopf f v. Wor l d Re s e ar ch Gr oup, LL C, 29 8 F. S up p. 2d 50 , 56 ( D.D. C. 2003 ) ( “pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s can be a ggr ega ted wh e n th e y ma k e a n i n t e g r a t e d c l a i m

— i n other w or ds, i fthe r i g hti s a c ol l ec ti ve r i g htpur su an t to whi cho ne pl aint i ff’ s f ai l ur e to c o l l ec t h is or he r s ha r e i nc r ea se s th e re m ai ni ng pl ai nti ff s’ dam age s”) ( i nter nal quotat i on m arks om itted ). The cla im s ofthe Good cl ass to Roga n Shoe s’ pote nti ali nsurance proce eds a re not“co m m on and und i vi ded ” a nd ther ef or e ca nnot be ag gr ega ted t o r e a c h th e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l min i mu m.

B. As s ignmentAf

f e ct i ng Jur i s di ct i on W hen ass i gnm ents ofr i ghts see m to h ave the e ffect ofcr eat i ng di ver si ty j uri sdic ti on, federa l cour ts gi ve them cl o se s cr ut i ny f o r s i g ns o fattempts t o mani pul at e th e ch oice off orum . Con gress h as p rovide d : “A district cou rt sh al l no t ha ve j ur i sdi ct i o n o f a ci vi l ac ti o n i n whi chany p ar ty , by a ss ign m en t o r ot h er w ise , ha s b ee n im p ro p er lyN o. 11

- 2790 17

orco l l usi vel y m ade orj oi ned to i n vo ke the j uri sdic ti on of such cour t. ” 2 8 U.S

. C. § 1 359; se e a l so Kra me rv. C arib be an M il ls, Inc. , 3 94 U. S

. 8 23 , 8 28

- 29 ( 19 69 ) ( affi r m i ng dism i ssa l f orl ack ofj uri sdic ti on: “I ffedera l j u ris dict i on cou l d b e cr ea te d b y a ss i g nm en ts o fthi s k i nd, whi cha re ea syt o a r r an g e an d i nv o l ve few di sa dva nt ag es f o r the as si g no r, the n a v as t qua nt i tyo fo r d inar y c o nt r ac t an d tor t l i ti gat i on co uld be channeled i nto the federa l co urts at the wil l o fo ne o fthe parti es. S uch ‘ m anufa cture o f Feder alj uri sdic ti on’ was the ver y thi n g w hi ch Congr ess i ntended to preve nt w hen it enacte d § 13 59 and i ts predec e ss or s.” ); Air l i ne s Rep or t i ng Corp
. v. S and N Trav e l, Inc., 58 F
. 3d 85 7, 8 62 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 5) ( “We g i ve c ar efuls cr ut i ny to a s s ign m en ts w hich m ight op erate to m an ufac tu re d iversity j urisd iction .
. . . ”). It is les s c le a r h ow clo se ly fed er al c ou rt s s h ou ld sc ru tini z e a s s i g n me n t s th a th a v e th e e ffe c to fd e fe a t i ng federa l di ver si ty j uri sdic ti on. Com pare M iller v. P erry, 456 F. 2d 63, 67, 66 ( 4th Cir

. 19 72 ) ( re ading K ram er as “i nj ecting a new note ofr eal i sm i nto the det er m i nati on ofd iversi ty j uri sdic ti on” and care fully s crutini zi ng at
tem pts to defe at dive rs i ty j uri sdic ti on, as w el l), w i th M es se r v. A m er ican Gem s, Inc. , 612 F. 2d 1367, 1375 ( 4th Cir. 1980 ) ( “28 U
. S. C. § 1 359 att aches no c onse quences t o steps tak en to defe at d i v e r s i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n . ” )

. In a ny eve nt, we do not see i n this case any i nd i cati on that Rogan S hoes and Good neg oti ate d the as si gnm ent o f th e f or m er ’ s insurance proce eds f orthe pu rpos es of th wa r t i n gT r a v e l e r s ’ r i g h tt o a fe d e r a l f o r u m. W e r ea chthi s co nc l us i o n in par t be ca us e th e as si g nm ent di d not hav e the effect ofpre venting Tra vel er s fro m18 N o. 11

- 2790

secur i ng a federa l f or um to re sol ve thi s co ntro ver sy. Fi rs t, itc o ul d ha ve s o ug hta de cl ar at o r y j udg m en t o fno ncove rage im m ed iately after Roga n Sh oes ten d ered Go od ’s cl ai m s t o i t. Bef or e the as si gnm ent, the am ount- i n-c ontr over sy re quir em ent woul d have be en m et. S ee M e r i di an Secur ity, 44 1 F
. 3d at 539. Se c on d , e v en aft er th e a ss ign m en t, T ra ve ler s c ou ld ha v e r e mov e d the s t a t e cour tp r o c e e di ngt o fe der alco urt once Good fi l ed that acti on s eekin g to discov er Trav el er s’ as set s. The st ate co urt ci tat i on pro ceedi ng o n behal fo fthe Good c las s w oul d have been subj ect to the Cl ass A cti on F ai rnes s A c t, so that re m ova l would nothave bee n bar re d by the o ney e a r l i mi to n r e mov a l i n di v e r s i t y c a s e s . S e e 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 45 3(b ). (Th e C las s A c tio n Fa irn es s A c t d oe s n otap p ly in this decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent a cti on, however, bec ause the a ct a pp l i es onl y where th er e i s a pl ai nti ffcl ass , not a d efe n d an t c las s. Se e 2 8 U .S.C . § 13 32 (d )(2) .) To c ou nt ertha t ar g um en t, Tr av el er s ar g ue s th atthe r e mov a l o pt i o n wa s f o r e c l o s e d b y a no the r de ci si on fr o m the di stri ct w he r e th i s ca se was fi l ed. The f ac ts a nd p os tu re of th at ca se , E clip se M a nu fa ctu ring C o . v. U nited St at e s Com pl i anc eCo. , N o. 05 C 540 6, 20 06 W L 42395 ( N
. D. I l l

. J an. 4, 20 06) , we re st ri ki ngl y s i m i l arto thi s o ne. A lth ou gh th e c as e is n otbin d in g p re c ed en t, on e c ou ld expect the deci si on t o i nfl uence pra cti ce in the dist ri ct, an d it d es er ve s o u r c los e a tt en tio n . Th e p l ain tiff in Ecl ips eM anu

f ac t ur i ng had fi l ed a pu tat i ve cl ass ac tion aga i nst a co m pany f oral l eg ed l y s ending unsol i ci ted adv er ti se m en ts b y f ac si m i l e i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Te l eph o neN o. 11

- 2790 19 Consum erPro tect i on Act, 4 7 U
. S. C. § 2 27, and sta te l aw . The parti es agr eed to a $4 m i l l i on j ud gm en t t h at, as here , co uld b e ex ecuted o nl y o n m oneyr ecei ved fro m th e d efend an t’s l iabil ity ins ure r. Th e state trial cou rt enter ed a j ud gm ent approvi ng the set tl em ent, after w hi ch the cl ass m em ber s fi l ed a ci tat i on to d isc ov er ass ets under 73 5 IL C S 5/2- 1402 , nam i ng the l i abi l i ty i ns ur era s a “thi r d- par tyr es po ndent. ” I ns te ad o fs ee k i ng a federa l decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent o fnon-lia bi l i ty, as Tr a v e l e r s di d he r e , the Ecl ips eM anu f ac t ur i ng i nsurer re m ove d the ci tat i on a cti on t o the federa l di str i ct c ourt
. T he di st r i ctc o ur t o r der ed r emand, fi ndi ngf o r the p lain tiff c las s o n tw o s ep ar at e g r o u n d s : F irs t, it h eld that the I l l i noi s ci tat i on pro ceedi ng was not re m ovab le und er 28 U
. S. C. § 1441 ( a) because i t w as not a “separ ate and i nd ependent acti on” fro m the u nd er l yi ng sui t i tse lf. Ecl ips eM

f g. , 2006 W L 4 23 95 , a t * 3. S ec o nd, the cou rt held that even i f th e citatio n p roceed ing w ere separ ate l y r em ovabl e, “r em oval would st i l l be i m proper because the j uri sdic ti onalam ount r equi rem ent for dive rs i ty i s no t s ati sfi ed. ” Id. at* 4. The cou rtexpl ai ned that each c l ass m em ber ’ s pro r ata shar e o fthe set tl em e n t w as less than $300, and aggregation w as no t pe rm i tte d because the j ud gm ent “ cannot be v i ew ed as an undivi ded l um p sum . ” Id. W e di sag re e with the Ecl ips eM anu f ac t ur i ng cou rt’s fi rs t co ncl usi on that the citat i on pro ceedi ng was not a re m ov ab le a c tio n . Sec tio n 14 41 p er m its rem ov a l o f“c ivil acti on[ s] br ought i n a St at e co urt” o verwh i ch federa l di s t r i c tc o ur t s “ ha v e o r i g i na l j ur i s di c t i o n. ” 2 8 U. S

. C.20 N o. 11

- 2790 §144 1( a)

. The st atute has l ong been i nter prete d to al l ow rem oval only of“ind ep en d en t suits” b ut not an c ill a ry or“s up ple m enta ry ” pro ceedi ngs. S ee Fe de r al Sa v. & Lo an Ins . Corp. v. Q ui nn , 419 F.2d 101 4, 1018 ( 7th Cir. 1969); see al so Barrow v. H unt on , 9 9 U. S

. 8 0, 8 3 ( 18 78 ) ( ex pl aini ng that a s up ple m entar y ac tio n so co nnected with a n or i gi nal act i on a s t o f or m a m er e inci d en t orco nti nuati o n o fi t i s no t r emov ab l e as a se par at e su i t)

. Thi s pr ude nti aldoctrin e se eks to avo i d the waste ofhaving federa l cou rt s “enter tain[ ] ‘ sat el l i te el em ents’ o fpending sta te sui ts an d j u d gm ents. ” A rm is te ad v. C & M Transp., Inc. , 49 F
. 3 d 4 3 , 4 6 ( 1 s t Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) , qu o t i ng 1 4 A W ri ght & M i l l er§ 3721
. W heth era parti cul arst ate j ud i ci alpro cedure quali fi es as a se p ar at e ac ti o n i s no t ana l l

- o r - no th i ngpr o po si ti o n. It d ep en d s o n th e c on t e x t o f ea c h ca se in w h ich it a r i s e s . S ee Q ui nn , 419 F.2d at10 18 -19 . Re m ov ab ility is a quest i on o ffed er al l aw , so the sta te’ s o w n char acte ri zati ons ofthe proce edi ng ar e not d ec isi ve. S ee C hicago, Rock Is l and & Pac. R.R . C o. v. St ude, 346 U
. S. 574, 580 (1954 ); Q ui nn , 41 9 F
. 2d at 1018
. N o bri ght- l i ne f or m ula exi sts f orse parat in g th e ind epen den t an d r emov ab l e sh ee p fr o m th e an ci l l ar y a nd no nre m ovabl e g oat s. But one ni netee nth centur y j ud ge offer ed this hel pfuldi stincti on: “where the s up ple

m en tal proce edi ng i s no t m er el y a m ode o fexec uti on o r r el i ef, b utwher e i t, i n f ac t, i nv olv es a n inde pen den t contr ove rs y with som e new and d i ffer ent par ty, i t m ay be rem oved i nt o the fed eral court .” B ufo rd v . Stroth er, 10 F. 40 6, 40 7 ( C.C. D. I owa 1881 ) ( Love, J
. )

. A ci tat i on pro -N o. 11

- 2790 21

c ee d in g (or a ga rn ish m en t p ro c ee d in g, as it is c alle d in m ostj urisdi cti ons) m ay often b e “ m er el y a m ode o f executi on ofr el i ef

. ” Id.; se e, e . g. , Vukadi novi ch v. M cCar t hy, 59 F. 3d 58, 62 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) (“G ar n i shm ent i s a s t a nd a r d, o ft e n e s s e nt i a l, s t e p i n the c o l l e c t i o n o fa j ud gm ent, and the pa rt y ho l ding the j ud gm ent .
. . o ught t o be abl e t o tak e thi s s tep witho ut hav in g to st ar t a ne w l aw su it in a d ifferent cou rt system
. ”). C ons istent w it h Jud ge L ove’s d isti nc tion, how ever, w hen ga rni shm ent pr oce edi ngs pr ese nt ge nuine dispu tes with ne w part i es and rai se new i ssue s of fa ct an d l aw, c o ur ts o ve r whel m i ng l y t r ea t th em as i ndepend ent a nd r em ov ab le acti ons. S ee 14B W ri ght & M i l l er § 37 21 , a t 2 8- 30 & n. 58 ( “Fo r exam ple , pro ceedi ngs for ga rn ish m en t . . . a r e c on sid er ed civ il ac tio n s w ith in th e m ea ni ngo fthe fede r alr emov als tatut e. ”) ( co l l ec ting c a se s); se e, e . g. , B utle r v. P olk, 5 9 2 F
. 2 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 5- 96 ( 5th Ci r. 19 79) ( garni sh m en t a cti on a gainst thi rd- party in su rer w as rem ovab le) ; S wa n s o n v . L i b e r tyNa t ’ l In s . Co. , 353 F. 2d 12, 13 ( 9th Ci r. 19 65) ( sam e); Randolph v. E m plo yers M ut. Lia b. Ins. Co . of Wis. , 2 6 0 F
. 2 d 4 6 1 , 46 4- 65 (8t h C ir. 19 58 ) (sa m e); Adr i ae ns s ens v. All s t at eIns . Co. , 25 8 F.2d 888 , 890 (10th Cir. 1958) (sam e). The re aso n i s cl ear : wh en the ga rni shm ent a cti on brings in a n ew p arty and rai ses new and di stinct disputed i ssue s, the proce edi ng i s no t “ substa nti al l y a c on ti nuati on o fa pri orsui t. ” S ee Q ui nn , 4 1 9 F
. 2 d a t10 18. J udi ci ale co no m y conc erns abo ut“ sa te l l i te ” i ss ue s no l onge r ap ply

. Thi s i s no t t o saythatany garni shm ent a cti on that i nvol ves a thi rd party i s a separ ate an d r em ovabl e a cti on. But “[ w ] here the garni shm ent pr oce du re s22 N o. 11

- 2790 al l o w f o r a dve r sa r i all i ti g at i o n o f d ispute d i ss ue s, a nd wher e th e g arni sh m en t ac ti o n inv o l ve s a ne w par tya nd disputed r i ghts and i ssues n ot d ec i ded bythe sta te cour t, r em ova l sho uld be per m i tte d.” Har din g H os p. v. So vc hen , 8 68 F
. S upp. 1 074, 1 07 8 ( S

. D. Ind. 1 99 4) ( den y i ng re m and afterTra vel er s r em oved gar ni shm ent a cti on that s o ughtt o r e s o l v e i ns ur a nc e c o v e r a g e i s s ue ) ; a c c o r d, Johns on v. Wi l s on , 1 8 5 F
. S up p. 2 d 9 6 0 , 964- 6 5 ( S

. D. Ind

. 20 02 ) ( den y i ngr em and wher e g arni sh m en t pr o ce eding i nvol ved new p ar ti es and rais ed l ega l and f actuali ssues not deci ded in the state court l i ti gat i on) ; se e a l so St e wartv. EG N EP (P ty) L t d. , 58 1 F
. S up p. 78 8, 79 0 ( C.D. I l l

. 19 83) ( den y i ngr emand o fg arni sh m en t pr o ce edi ng s r ai sing i nt er es ts a nd de fen se s se par at e fr o m tho se o fj udg m en t cred itors). I n l ight o fthe se pr i nc i pl es , the c i ta ti o n pr o ce eding ag ain stT r a v ele rs w as se p ar at e fro m th e u n d er lyin g s u it between Rogan Shoe s and Goo d. I t coul d ha ve be en re m ove d i fthe re quire m en ts ofdi ver si ty j uri sdic ti on w er e sa ti sfi ed. Tr av el er s was b r o ug hti nt o s ta te c o urt und era l aw al l owing the c ourtto “[ a] uthori ze the j ud gm ent c re dit orto m ai nt ai n a n a ct i on ag ai nst a ny per son or corp oration th at, it a p p ears up on proof s at i s f ac t ory t o the co urt, i s ind ebte d to th e jud gm en t d ebtor, f or the recov ery o f t h e de bt.” 735 I L C S 5/2-1402(c)(6) ( em p ha ses ad d ed ). W e nee d not s peci fy here the preci se ti m e that the ci tation p r o c e ed ing m ight ha ve bee n rem ovab le ( ap art fro m am ount- i n-c ontr ove rs y i ssues ) , and the re m ova l sta tute al l ows a l itt le p l ay i n the j oi nts when i t m ay not be appa r e nta tthe o ut s e ttha ta p r o c e e di ngc a n b e r em o ve d. S ee 2 8 U
. S

. C. § 1 44 6(b) ( 3)

. I fno t wi ththeN o. 11

- 2790 23 in itia l cit at ion, w h ich on its fac e d em an d ed on ly disc ove ryo fdocum ents, then l ate r as the di sp u te ove r i ns ur an ce c o ve r ag e cr y st al l i ze d i n the s ta te c o ur t, the ci tat i on pro ceedi ng be cam e a n “a c tio n . . . f orthe re c ov er y of th e d eb t.” This new act i on was an “ i nd ependent contr ove rs y w i th s om e new and differ ent par ty” and w as quit e dist i nct fro m the und er l yi ng ca se between Roga n Shoe s a nd Good. S ee B ufo rd, 10 F. at40 7. In t h at i ni ti al l i ti gat i on, the issues were w hetherRoga n Sho es vi ol ate d the fe de r a l s t a t ut e o n c r e di t c a r d r e c e i pt s , a nd i fso , how m any t i m es, and w hat dam age s s houl d be aw ar ded

. T he o pp osing par ti es w er e Rog an S hoes aga i nst Goo d on behal fo fa cl ass . In the ci tat i on pro ceedi ng, t h e pr i nci pal i ssue i s whether Rogan S hoes ’ l i ab i l i tyi ns ur an ce po l i ci es wi thTravele r s co ve r ed th e cl ai m s fori ts al l ege d vi ol ati ons ofthe federa l l aw , with Rogan S h oes and the Good cl ass m em ber s a l l i ed to gether ag ains t a ne w par ty, Tr av el er s. The c i tati on pro ce eding th u s f e a t ur e s a n e w p a r t y, a n e w a n d d i s t i n c tl e g a l c l a i m, new i ssues off act and l aw , and eve n a r eal i gnm ent o f th e o r i g i na l l i ti g an ts
. Asi de fr o m the c i ta ti o n a ct i o n’s or igin at ion in t h e u n d er lyin g s u it, it b ec am e fo r all i nt en ts a nd pur po se s a se par ate cas e. W e be l i ev e th e Ecl ips eM anu

f ac t ur i ngcou rt erred in con clud in g otherw ise on n ea rly id en tic al fa c ts
. W e ta ke n o iss u e, how eve r, with the E clipseM anufact ur i ng cour t’ s r em and i n that case bas ed on the al ternati ve ho lding th ata g g r eg at i o n was no t per m i tt ed to s at i sfy the amoun t- i n- co nt r o ve r syr equi r ement
. The c o urt ’ s ho l di ng24 N o. 11

- 2790 on that point i s consi ste nt w i th our a nal ysi s o fanti

- agg re gat i on pri nci ple s abov e. Bu t that hol ding w oul d have po se d no o bs ta cl e t o Tr av el er s’ abi l i tyt o r emov e th e ci ta ti o n a ct i o n a g ains t i t to federa l c o ur t, tha nk s to the Clas s Acti on F ai rnes s Act of20 05. That a ct m odi fi ed dive rs i ty j uri sdic ti on r ule s s o as to perm i t fe deral dive rs i ty j uri sdic ti on w here dive rs i ty i s on ly m i ni m al b utthe ma t t e r i n c o nt r o v e r s y e xc e e ds $5, 000, 000. 28 U. S

. C

. § 1 3 3 2 ( d )

. S e c t i o n 1 3 3 2 ( d ) ( 6 ) r e l a x e s th e g en er al d ive rs ity ru le a ga in st ag gr eg at i o n an d “e x p licit ly p r o v i d e s f o r a g g r e g a t i o n o fe a c h c l a s s me mb e r ’ s c l a i ms ind et er m in in g w h et h er th e a m ou n t o f co n tr ov er sy is at l eas t $ 5, 000, 000. ” Bloc kb us t e r, Inc . v. Gal e no , 47 2 F
. 3d 53, 59 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 6)

. The $ 16 mil l ion se tt l ementtha t th e Good c l ass so ught t o col l ect exceeded the agg re gat e am ount- i n-c ontr ove rs y thres hol d, so the fe d er aldi str i ctc o urt c o ul d ha ve ha d s ubj ec t m at te r j ur i sdi ct i o n. The deadli ne f orr em ova l, however, was 3 0 d ays after Travel er s’ r ecei pt ofthe ci tat i on o r such other docum ents that w oul d h ave m ade i t a scer tainabl e that the cas e was re m ovabl e. See 2 8 U
. S. C. § 1 446(b)

. That deadl i ne has pa s s e d. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent o fdi sm i ssa l i s A FFI RMED ASM OD IF IE D to r efl ect that the dism iss al i s forl ack of j ur i sdi ct i o n.

7- 27- 12