Opinion ID: 161121
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aggregation of Attorney Fees

Text: 29 In their removal notice, defendants also assert that [t]he attorney fees of the entire class are attributable to the named plaintiffs for purposes of satisfying the jurisdictional amount. Aplt. App., doc 4 at 3. Although defendants do not present this argument directly on appeal, they contend that all of the fees requested by the Martins should be considered in determining whether their claims satisfy the amount in controversy, in effect attributing all the fees that will potentially be recovered in this putative class action to the class representatives. 30 Courts have generally held, under the same rationale applied to preclude the aggregation of puntive damages, that attorneys fees cannot be aggregated for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Morrison, 228 F.3d at 1266-68 (when each class member could recover attorneys fees if he sued separately, right to recover fees was separate and distinct and could not be aggregated); see also Goldberg v. CPC Int'l, Inc., 678 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1982) (aggregation of attorneys fees would conflict with Supreme Court authority requiring plaintiffs with separate and distinct claims to each meet jurisdictional amount). 6 We agree and conclude that potential attorneys fees requested on behalf of the class may not be aggregated and attributed entirely to the Martins in assessing whether they meet the amount in controversy. 7 31 In view of our conclusions that neither the face of the complaint nor the removal notice demonstrate that the Martins' claims will exceed $50,000, and that neither the punitive damages nor the attorneys fees sought by the class can be attributed entirely to the Martins as class representatives, we hold defendants have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Martins' claims meet the amount in controversy necessary to the exercise of diversity jurisdiction. 8 32 Because the Martins' claims do not meet the jurisdictional amount, the disposition of the class claims by the district court is irrelevant. Although we therefore need not address the remaining arguments with respect to the class, we make the following observations. This court has specifically rejected defendants' contention that so long as the class representatives meet the jurisdictional amount, all class members fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. See Leonhardt, 160 F.3d at 638-41 (rejecting argument that the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, concerning supplemental jurisdiction, altered the historical aggregation rules under § 1332 for class actions, and concluding enactment of § 1367 did not overrule pre-existing authority holding each plaintiff in a diversity-based class action must meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy under § 1332). 9 In any event, because the class representatives here do not meet the jurisdictional amount, supplemental jurisdiction over class members would not be available. 10 33 In sum, we hold that we have appellate jurisdiction over this final, appealable order. Defendants have failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy, and the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with directions to remand this action to state court.