Bridewell-Sledge v. Blue Cross of CA, No. 15-56038 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
The district court, in evaluating whether it had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), over the removed action, analyzed this consolidated case as though it remained two separate class actions, and concluded that CAFA’s local controversy exception applied to the first-filed class action, Bridewell-Sledge v. Blue Cross of California, but that the exception did not apply to the second-filed class action, Crowder v. Blue Cross of California. The court held that it was improper for the district court to view Bridewell-Sledge and Crowder as two separate class actions after they had been consolidated by the state court. In this case, the Bridewell-Sledge/Crowder consolidated class action should have been
viewed by the district court as a single class action when evaluating jurisdiction under CAFA. Once it is recognized that the two cases became one, it is clear that CAFA’s local controversy exception applies to the consolidated class action, and, therefore, the district court was required to remand the entire Bridewell-Sledge/Crowder consolidated class action to state court.
Court Description: Class Action Fairness Act. The panel affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the district court’s order remanding one class action to state court and retaining jurisdiction of a second class action; held that the two actions should have been viewed as a single class action when evaluating jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”); and remanded with directions to the district court to treat the class actions as a single consolidated case and remand it in its entirety to state court. CAFA’s local controversy exception to its grant of removal jurisdiction provides that a district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction where certain requirements are met so that class actions with a truly local focus should not be moved to federal court under CAFA. Only the fourth prong of CAFA’s local controversy exception – that no similar class action has been filed against any of the defendants in the preceding three years – was at issue in the appeal. The panel held that the state court’s consolidation of the two class actions prior to removal resulted in a single consolidated action, and, as such, no “other class action” had been filed during the three-year period preceding the filing of the consolidated class action. The panel held, accordingly, that CAFA’s local controversy exception applied to this consolidated class action, and the district court was required to remand the entire class action to state court. 4 BRIDEWELL-SLEDGE V. BLUE CROSS OF CAL.
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.