Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Metcalf v. TransPerfect Global, Judge Nathan granted leave to amend the complaint to allege federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Michele Metcalf and the other plaintiffs were allowed to file a Second Amended Complaint. TransPerfect Global, Inc. and the other defendants retained the ability to challenge subject matter jurisdiction later.
What happened
In Michele Metcalf v. TransPerfect Global, Inc., the court questioned whether it had federal jurisdiction because the case had no federal claim and the complaint alleged that the parties were not completely diverse. Michele Metcalf and the other plaintiffs asked to file a Second Amended Complaint invoking the Class Action Fairness Act.
The defendants objected, arguing that the proposed class had fewer than 100 members and that an exception for local controversies involving mostly citizens of one state would apply. The court said the defendants had offered no supporting evidence and could not show at that stage that the amendment would be futile.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the plaintiffs’ request to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint and required them to file it within seven days. The court did not decide the defendants’ jurisdictional arguments, which they could raise later, including when seeking dismissal.
The detailed version
- Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10104
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
The court had previously ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court noted that the case did not contain a federal claim and that the Amended Complaint alleged there was not complete diversity of citizenship.
The plaintiffs responded by seeking permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. The proposed pleading alleged federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, which can provide original federal jurisdiction over certain class actions when the proposed class has at least 100 members, the amount in controversy is at least $5 million, and at least one plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states, subject to statutory exceptions.
Arguments and analysis
The defendants objected that the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning it would not cure the jurisdictional problem even if allowed. They argued that the proposed class had fewer than 100 members and that more than two-thirds of the proposed class were citizens of New York, which they said triggered the local controversy exception to Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction.
The court declined to resolve those factual issues at that stage. It found that the defendants had made the assertions in letter briefing without supporting evidence, and the record did not establish that subject matter jurisdiction would still be lacking after amendment. The court stated that the defendants could raise those and other jurisdictional arguments later, including at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the plaintiffs’ request to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs were required to file it within seven days of the order. The order did not decide whether the court ultimately had subject matter jurisdiction and did not resolve the defendants’ objections on the merits.
Disposition
The request to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint was granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.