Hargett v. RevClaims, LLC, No. 17-1339 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendants in state court on behalf of a class comprising of all persons who were Arkansas Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries who were treated at one of the defendant hospitals and who had similar liens placed on their third-party claims by RevClaims. Defendants removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). After plaintiff filed an amended complaint defining the proposed class as all Arkansas citizens who were Arkansas Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries, the case was remanded to state court. The court concluded that section 1332(a)'s citizenship/residency distinction applies in section 1332(d)(4). "Citizen" means the same in both subsections—and that meaning is not synonymous with "resident." Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that merely alleging a proposed class of Arkansas residents was sufficient to satisfy section 1334(d)(4). In this case, plaintiff could have met her burden by producing evidence or by defining her class to include only Arkansas citizens, merely alleging residency was not enough. The court noted that the district court cited no authority for ordering plaintiff to restrict her class definition through an amended complaint before remand. Finally, the court explained that nothing the court said about residency and citizenship means that the district court lacked jurisdiction. The court reversed the remand order and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Class Action Fairness Act. Under the local controversy exception, the term citizen means the same thing in 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(I) as it does in the rest of section 1332 and that definition is not synonymous with "resident." The district court erred in holding that merely alleging a proposed class of Arkansas residents was sufficient to satisfy section 1332(d)(4); it could have met the burden by producing evidence or defining the class to include only Arkansas citizens. Consideration of the amended complaint that redefined the class after removal was error. For purposes of the local-controversy exception in section 1332(d)(7), class citizenship must be determined as of the date of the pleading giving federal jurisdiction. Nothing stated herein means that the district court lacked jurisdiction. The remand order is reversed and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings. [ April 13, 2017
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.