Gibson v. Clean Harbors Environmental, No. 16-8012 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseRespondents filed a class action complaint against Clean Harbors, alleging state tort claims related to a chemical release of hazardous waste storage and treatment facility operated by Clean Harbors. The district court granted respondents' motion to remand their putative class action complaint to state court. The court held that, in the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), context, the thirty-day removal period set forth in section 1446(b)(3) does not begin to run until the defendant receives from the plaintiff an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper “from which the defendant can unambiguously ascertain” that the CAFA jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied. In this case, the court concluded that Clean Harbors's removal was timely; the settlement letter did not provide the necessary detail and clarity from which Clean Harbors could unambiguously ascertain that CAFA’s class-size and amount-in-controversy jurisdictional requirements had been satisfied and that the case had become removable, and thus it did not constitute “other paper” sufficient to trigger section 1446(b)(3)’s thirty-day removal period; and respondents’ expert report constituted “other paper” from which Clean Harbors could first unambiguously ascertain that CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements had been satisfied such that section 1446(b)(3)’s thirty-day removal period was triggered. Therefore, section 1446(b)(3)’s thirty-day removal period began to run only upon Clean Harbors’s receipt of the report, rendering Clean Harbors’s May 9, 2016, notice of removal timely. The court granted the petition for permission to appeal and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Class Action Fairness Act. Petition for permission to appeal is granted. District court erred in concluding removal was untimely and in remanding case to state court. Settlement letter with settlement demand did not specifically and unambiguously state amount respondents were seeking the recover in damages or geographical area affected by the chemical release, thus not making it possible for Clean Harbors to ascertain that CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirements were satisfied, whereas the receipt of the expert's report constituted "other paper" and set forth the theory of damages and class size and provided information to determine with the requisite degree of specificity and accuracy the amount in controversy. Remand order is vacated and case remanded for further proceedings. Judge Murphy dissents. [ October 21, 2016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.