The exception mandates remand where more than two-thirds of class members are citizens of the filing state, at least one significant defendant is a citizen of that state, principal injuries occurred there, and no similar class action was filed against any defendant in the preceding three years.
The plaintiff bears the burden.
Alternative Names:
CAFA Local Controversy, Local Controversy Provision
Why it Matters?
Establishing the citizenship percentage is the practical battleground, since the plaintiff must prove that more than two-thirds of members are citizens of the forum state, and citizenship differs from residence. Courts have divided on whether survey evidence or reasonable inference suffices. The three-year lookback for similar filings is the other element, and it is defeated by any comparable class action against a defendant during that period.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Who bears the burden?
What defeats the exception?
