Opinion ID: 613226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Local Controversy Mandatory Abstention

Text: Pursuant to the local controversy mandatory abstention provision of CAFA, the district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction: (i) over a class action in which  (I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed; (II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant  (aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class; (bb) whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and (cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; and (III) principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in which the action was originally filed; and (ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). Congress crafted CAFA to exclude only a narrow category of truly localized controversies, and the exceptions provide a statutory vehicle for the district courts to ferret out the controversy that uniquely affects a particular locality to the exclusion of all others. Preston II, 485 F.3d at 823 (citing Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir.2006)) (internal quotes omitted).