Opinion ID: 173686
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Briefing

Text: Joined by American Modern Home Insurance Company, State Farm first argued that the “other class action” provision, found in § 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii), was not satisfied because plaintiffs had filed the Ottawa County Case. State Farm then focused on the joinder of the two groups of defendants, arguing that the claims against the insurance companies had been misjoined with the claims against the Trust-related Defendants. “When the claims against the [Trust-related] defendants are disregarded, there is no Oklahoma citizen whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and from whom significant relief is sought by the defendants.” Aplt. App., Vol. II at 453. In making its local controversy analysis, State Farm urged the district court to “disregard the claims against the [Trust-related] Defendants and . . . consider the elements of the local controversy exception only as they apply to the -9- claims against the Insurer Defendants.” Id. at 458. State Farm then argued why none of the Oklahoma insurers would satisfy the exception’s local-defendant provision, found in § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II). Finally, State Farm asserted that plaintiffs had not shown that at least two-thirds of them were citizens of Oklahoma, as required by § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(I). In favor of remand, plaintiffs asserted that each of them had claims against Strong, Roberts, Cinnabar, and Van Tuyl, and they sought significant relief from Cinnabar and Van Tuyl. They asserted that the Ottawa County Case did not preclude applying the exception because no defendant was named in both cases. They denied that there was a fraudulent joinder, and asserted that this was not the kind of case that CAFA envisioned as proper for removal. In reply, State Farm again asserted that plaintiffs had not satisfied the “no other class action” requirement. It further pressed its procedural-misjoinder theory, noting that plaintiffs missed the point when they discussed fraudulent joinder (as distinguished from misjoinder). And it noted that plaintiffs had not disputed that, absent the Trust-related Defendants, there was no local defendant.