Opinion ID: 613226
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preponderance of the Evidence Residence in Texas

Text: United States census data is an appropriate and frequent subject of judicial notice. See United States v. Esquivel, 88 F.3d 722, 726-27 (9th Cir.1996) ; see also Bennett v. Board of Commissioners for East Jefferson Levee District, 2007 WL 2571942, -5 (E.D.La.2007) (using United States Census Bureau data in CAFA analysis); O'Toole v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir.2007) (concluding that the failure to take judicial notice was an abuse of discretion when the party opposing judicial notice did not dispute its accuracy and did not request a hearing on the appropriateness of judicial notice); In re Sprint Nextel Corp., 593 F.3d 669, 675-76 (7th Cir.2010) (surveys of a representative sample of the proposed class might be sufficient evidence). Here, the district court took judicial notice that the relocation rate of American citizens of all ages and races out of Texas was about 5.2% between 2007 and 2009  the relevant time period. United States Census Bureau Statistics / Estimates 2006-08 (excerpt), Appendix 3. In addition, a smaller percentage of people move out of Texas than from any other state. See Pew Research Center Report, American Mobility. Who Stays Put? Where's Home? Social & Demographic Trends (December 17, 2008). Appendix 1, Appendix 2. The Insurance Companies put forth further statistical support showing by a preponderance of the evidence  i.e., that it is more likely than not  that greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of Texas and of the United States. For example, more than 99% of the automobiles that the County Mutuals insure are located in Texas. Also, only about 11% of Texas residents are not United States citizens. Although the Insurance Companies' statistics about Texas residents are not specific to the Insured, these statistics are nonetheless probative, particularly in the absence of any contrary showing by the Insured. Cf. Caruso, supra, 469 F.Supp.2d at 368 (Although there well may be proposed classes where detailed proof of the two-thirds citizenship requirement is required, the Court finds that common sense should prevail in this closed-end class involving people who, as noted, hold an asset that is a measure of domicile, their home.); see also Coury, supra, 85 F.3d at 251(noting that factors for determining domicile include places where the litigant ... owns real and personal property). Even more so, the anti-discrimination provision of the Texas Insurance Code is the statutory basis for this action. Likewise, the Insured limit their proposed class to persons who purchased an automobile insurance policy in Texas.  Indeed, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each of the Insurance Companies occurred in Texas. Additionally, the County Mutuals are citizens of Texas and only issue policies in Texas. The County Mutuals are the primary defendants, because all putative class members, by definition, have claims against the County Mutuals, and as the entities that issued the insurance policies, the County Mutuals have a primary role in the alleged discrimination. A preponderance of the evidence (statistical and otherwise) thus shows that the Insured's proposed class were domiciled in Texas at the time the complaint was filed.