The Badlands Give A Good Opinion For CAFA Jurisdiction

Calvillo v. Siouxland Urology Assocs. P.C., No. CIV. 09–4051–KES, 2011 WL 5155093 (D.S.D. Oct. 28, 2011).

In this action a District Court in South Dakota held that denial of class certification is merely a change of a jurisdictional fact and such changes do not affect the continuation of jurisdiction under CAFA.

The plaintiffs brought a tort action directly in the District Court against the defendants, Siouxland Urology Associates, Siouxland Urology Center, and other doctors. (With a name like that..Sue Land...you would expect to be a defendant in litigation).

When the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to strike the class allegations, the plaintiffs moved for joinder of parties and filed an amended complaint. Following its granting of the motion for joinder, the Court ordered a second amended complaint to be filed identifying the newly joined parties and any facts pertaining to those individuals. After the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint, the Court denied the plaintiffs' second motion for class certification.

The plaintiffs then filed the third amended complaint, which included claims against the defendants for negligence, medical malpractice, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, battery, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, informed consent, unjust enrichment, and violation of South Dakota's deceptive trade practices and consumer protection act.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs, as patients, were harmed when the defendants reused bags of irrigation fluid and plastic tubing for their cystoscopy procedures, which raised the possibility of exposure to blood infections or blood-borne illnesses. The plaintiffs again included class-wide claims even though class certification had been denied.

The defendants again moved to strike the class allegations from plaintiffs' third amended complaint, which the Court granted. The Court held that its order denying certification of the class was final, and plaintiffs' inclusion of class allegations in its third amended complaint was redundant, immaterial, and no longer connected to the subject matter being litigated.

The plaintiffs argued that if the Court found that the class certification determination was final then it should dismiss the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. The defendants, however, contended that the Court retains jurisdiction because subject matter jurisdiction existed under...