Musiello v. CBS Corporation

Background

Jacquelyn Musiello filed a class action in New York Supreme Court alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation arising from alleged discriminatory practices prohibited by New York anti-discrimination and labor laws. The complaint sought $10 million for Musiello and others similarly situated.

The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). CAFA generally gives federal district courts jurisdiction over qualifying class actions when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, there is minimal diversity, and the proposed class includes more than 100 plaintiffs. The removing defendants had the burden to establish CAFA jurisdiction by a reasonable probability.

Motion to Remand

Musiello moved to remand, arguing primarily that the defendants had not established that the proposed class included more than 100 people. She argued that her complaint did not identify or estimate the class’s precise size and that the defendants’ estimate was unsupported. She also suggested that CAFA’s home-state exception applied.

The court rejected the numerosity argument. The defendants presented information from human-resources records indicating that they employed more than 400 female employees in their New York City offices during the relevant statutory period. The court concluded that this was sufficient to satisfy CAFA’s requirement that the proposed class exceed 100 plaintiffs. The court also read the complaint as asserting claims on behalf of all current and former female employees who worked for the defendants during the statutory period, rather than only the fewer than ten people specifically identified by Musiello.

The court further stated that even if Musiello had proposed a narrower class after removal, that change would not eliminate CAFA jurisdiction. It cited precedent holding that CAFA jurisdiction remains secure when a plaintiff later attempts to remove class allegations from the complaint.

Home-State Exception

CAFA’s home-state exception requires a federal court to decline jurisdiction when at least two-thirds of the proposed class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the action was originally filed. After CAFA jurisdiction is established, the party opposing federal jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that an exception applies.

The court rejected Musiello’s suggested home-state-exception argument because she did not make a substantive showing that the exception applied. The court also rejected her complaints about the form and production of the employee data as insufficient to meet her burden.

Attorneys’ Fees and Disposition

Musiello first requested attorneys’ fees and costs in her reply brief. The court noted that new arguments generally may not be raised for the first time in a reply, but denied the request on the merits as well. It found that the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal and that their reliance on CAFA jurisdiction was proper.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Musiello’s motion for remand. The court stated that it would issue a separate briefing schedule for the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which had been held in abeyance while the remand dispute was resolved. The opinion did not decide the merits of Musiello’s discrimination and related claims.