FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 12, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 14 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 06 8- CV-CDL-3 ROSA L. THOMAS, Ind iv idua ll y an d as Cla ss rep res en ta ti ve forall ot he r si m il arl y

si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us BANK OF AMERICA COR PORATION, UNKNOW

N PARTIES A, B, C, AND D, Who se real an d p ro pe r id en ti ti es are u nkno wn atpre se nt , FIA CARD SERVI CES, N.A., d.b .a. FIA Car d S erv ic es , Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 1 2, 2 00 9)Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: On J un e 2 , 20 08 , Ros a L. Tho m as fil eda cl as s ac ti on ag ai ns t Bankof Am eri ca an d F IA CardServ ic es , a who ll y -o wne d s ub si di ary of Ban k o f Am eri ca, (joi nt ly referre d t o a s “ Ban k o f Am eri ca”) inth e Supe rio r Co urt o f Cl ark e Co un ty, Geo rg ia . Tho m as ’s com

pl ai ntall eg edth atBan k o f Am eri ca co m m it te d i ns ur an ce frau d i n v io la ti on of O.C.G.A. § 3 3- 31 -7 , comm it te d u nf ai r an d d ecep ti ve act s i n vi ol at io n o f O.C.G.A. § 33 -6 -4 , act edinba d fa it h, an d v io la te d Geo rg ia ’s Rac ke te er In flu en cedan d C orruptOrga ni zat io ns Act (“ RICO” ), O.C.G.A. § 16
- 14 -4 , by se ll in g abu nd le d i ns ur an ce p ro du ct , kn own as C red itPro te ct io n P lu s, t o in el ig ib le in di vi du al s. The Cred itPro te ct io n P la n p ro vi de s d iff eri ng be ne fit s u nd er the fol lo win g
se pa rat e co nt in ge nc ie s: cred itli fe i ns ur an ce, cre di t ac ci de ntan d s ic kn es s in su ran ce, i nv ol un ta ry

un em pl oym en t i ns ur an ce, h os pi ta li zat io n, an d u np ai d fam il y lea ve of abs en ce. Tho m as ’s com pl ai ntall eg edth atth e p aym en t o f be ne fit s fo r m os t o f th e Cre di t Pr ot ect io n P lu s co m po ne nt s was co nt in ge nton th e cu st om er be in g e m pl oyed fo r atlea st30 ho ur s p er weekan d B an k o f Am eri ca s ol d t he pr oduc t t o i nd iv idua ls , in cl ud in g h ers el f, who work edles s t ha n 3 0 h ou rs pe r week
.

2The co m

pl ai ntso ug htth e rec ov ery of “ al l p rem iu m s co ll ect edby [Bankof Am eri ca] from

Pla in ti ff an d t he cla ss m em be rs . . . fo r va rio us in su ran ce p ro du ct s fo r whi ch Pla in ti ff an d t he cla ss m em be rs were i ne li gi bl e to rece iv e b en efi ts th ereu nd er,” an d, u nd er RI CO, so ug httre bl e d am ag es an d a tt orne y s’ fees
. The co m pl ai ntde fin edTho m as ’s pu ta ti ve cla ss alt ern at iv el y , as “ [a]ll Geo rg iares id en ts who ha ve (orha d wi th in th e ap pl ic ab le st atut e o f li m it at io ns ) a cred itacco un t wi thDefen da nt s an d h av e en ro ll edin , andpa idpre m iu m s fo r Defen da nt s’ ‘ Cred itPro te ct io n P lu s’ pro du ct s,” or a s: 1 All Geor gi a res id en ts who ha ve (orha d wi th in th e ap pl ic ab le st atut e of li m it at io ns ) a cre di t ac co un t wi th Defen da nt s an d h av e en ro ll edin , an d p ai d p rem iu m s fo r Defen da nt s’ “ Cred itPro te ct io n P lu s” pro du ct s who were i ne li gi bl e fo r an y of t he bu nd le d b en efi ts at t he ti m e o f pu rch as e o f Defen da nt s’ “ Cred itPro te ct io n P lu s” pro du ct s, o r be cam e in el ig ib le for

an y of the bund le d b en efi ts withi n the ti m e p eri odin whi ch sai d Geo rg iares id en ts pa idpre m iu m s t o Def en da nt s fo r co ve rag e u nd er the “ Cred itPro te ct io n P lu s” pro du ct s. 2

Thomas sought class ce rtification under O.C.G.A. § 9-11- 23(b)( 2) which pr ovides that 1 An ac tion may

be maintained a s a cla ss action if the pre requisites of [numerosity , commonality , ty

picality , and represe ntativeness] are satisfied, and, in addition . . . [t ]he party

opposing the class has a cted or ref used to ac t on gr ounds g ener ally applicable to the class, ther eby makingappropriate fina l injunctive relief or corr espondingdecla

ratory relief with respec t to the class as a whole. O.C.G.A. § 9-11- 23(b)( 3) provides that an ac tion may be maintained a s a cla ss action if 2 the four pr ere quisites of class ce rtification ar e met and a court finds that c ommon issues of law or fac t predominate ove r individual questions and a c lass action is superior to other available methods. 3The co m

pl ai ntdi d n otin di cat e th e num be r of in di vi du al s i n e it he r of

th e p ro po se d cl as se s o r th e m on et ary am ou ntof t he reco ve ry th ey were s eek in g. On J ul y 30 , 20 08 , Ban k o f Am eri ca fi le d aNot ic e o f Rem ov al to th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a, co nt en di ng th at juri sd ic ti on was app ro pr ia te be cau se th e act io n qua li fie d a s a “ m as s ac ti on ” und er th e Cl as s Act io n F ai rn es s Actof 2 00 5 (“ CAFA”), Pub. L. No. 1 09 -2 , 11 9 S ta t. 4 (co di fie d i n s cat te redsec ti on s o f 28 U.S.C.). Und er CAFA, t o re m ov e a m as s act io n t o fe de ral co urt, a d efen da ntm us t s ho w: (1 ) anam ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y of a n ag gr eg at e o f $5 ,00 0,0 00 incla im s: (2) m in im al di ve rs it y ; (3 ) nu m ero si ty inv ol vi ng
m on et ary cl ai m s o f 10 0 o r m or e p la in ti ffs ; an d (4 ) co m m on al it y sh owi ng th atth e pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s i nv ol ve co m

m on qu es ti on s o f law or fa ct . Lowery v. Alab am a Po wer Co ., 48 3 F .3d11 84 , 12 02 -0 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Becau se Tho m as pro vi de d
no in fo rm at io n re la ti ng to th e am ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y or t he nu m

be r of pl ai nt iff s i n each cla ss , Ban k o f Am eri ca s up pl em en te d i ts Not ic e o f Rem ov al with a de cl arat io n t ha t s ta te d t ha t “ [f]rom Octo be r 23 , 20 06 th ro ug h J un e 3 0, 2 00 8, Defen da nten ro ll ed77 ,78 7 c us to m ers an d c ol le ct eda to ta l o f $4 ,82 5,8 09 infees fro m cu st om ers inGeor gi a fo r th e Cre di t Pr ot ect io n P lu s p lan.” Ban k o f Am eri ca 3

The de clar ation was made by Robert Morris, Senior Ope rations Project Mana g er of 3 Ba nk of America. 4arg ue d t ha t b ecau se Tho m as so ug httre bl e d am ag es un de r th e RIC O st atut e an d

at to rn ey s’ fees , th e am ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y cle arl y ex ceed ed$5 ,00 0,0 00
. Tho m as m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt t o re m an d t he cas e to th e st at e co urt o n t he gr ou ndth atBan k o f Am eri ca h adno t s ho wn b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce th atth e am ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y ex ceed ed$5 ,00 0,0 00 ; thu s, Th om as arg ue s juri sd ic ti on un de r CAFA was lac ki ng . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 32 (d ). The d is tri ct 4
co urt ag reedan d g ran te d Th om as ’s m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the $4 .8
m il li on fig ur e d idno t ac cu rat el y id en ti fy th e am ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y be cau se Tho m as ’s com

pl ai ntdi d n otall eg e th atall of t he Geor gi a Cre di t Pr ot ect io n P lu s
cu st om ers were en ti tl edto rel ie f fo r th e en ti re am ou ntof the ir C red itPro du ct io n Pl us fees . The co urt thu s co nc lu de d t ha t the re was “ gr eatun cert ai nt y reg ard in g th e am ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y an d t he cla ss si ze.” A cas e d oe s n otbe co m e rem ov ab le as aCAFA cas e u nt il a do cu m en t i s

“ rece iv edby the de fen da ntfro m th e p la in ti ff—

be itth e in it ia l co m

pl ai ntor alat er
rece iv edpape r . . . [th at ] un am bi gu ou sl y est ab li sh [es ] fed eral juri sd ic ti on .” Lowery , 48 3 F .3dat 1 21 3. On ce s uc h ado cu m en t i s re cei ve d, the de fen da ntha s th irt y da y s t o fi le th e n ot ic e o f rem ov al . 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 6( b) . In o th er wo rd s, a

Ba nk of America, a s the party removingthe ca se to the district court, bor e the bur den of 4 establishing f

eder al subject matter

jurisdiction. Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F .3d 1159, 1164 (11th Cir. 2006). 5de fen da ntm ay no t s im pl y fil e a n ot ic e o f rem ov al th irt y da y s af te r th e fi li ng of t he
co m pl ai ntun le ss th atdo cu m en t s ho ws tha t the CAFA’s juri sd ic ti on al requi rem en ts foranact io n t o b e d eem eda m as s ac ti onare m et . A defe nd an t wi ll ge ne ral ly establ is h p ro of

of t he am ou ntinco nt ro ve rs y ba se d o n d oc um en ts
rece iv edfro m

th e p la in ti ff b ecau se a “ rem ov in g d efen da ntge ne ral ly w il l h av e n o di rectkn owl ed ge of t he va lu e o f th e p la in ti ff’s cl ai m s.” Id . at 1 21 3 n .63
. Here, the co m

pl ai ntpro vi de d n o i nf

orm at io n i nd ic at in g t he am ou ntin
co nt ro ve rs y

or t he nu m

be r of in di vi du al s i n t he alt ern at iv e cl as se s. Thus , bec au se de fen da ntha s n otsh ownth e am ou ntinco ntro ve rs y an d t he si zes of the alt ern at iv e cl as se s b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, the jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s AFFIR MED.

6