Allen v. Boeing Co., No. 16-35175 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, 108 individuals with property near the Boeing facility, filed suit against Boeing and Landau in state court, alleging that for several decades Boeing released toxins into the groundwater around its facility in Auburn, Washington, and that for over a decade Landau had been negligent in its investigation and remediation of the resulting pollution. Boeing removed to federal court based on diversity and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The district court remanded to state court finding that there was not complete diversity and plaintiffs' action came within the single-event exception to CAFA federal jurisdiction. In this appeal, Boeing argued that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they seek “significant relief” from Landau, the in-state defendant, and that Landau’s conduct does not form “a significant basis of the claims asserted,” as required by section 1332(d)(4)(A)(i). The court concluded that plaintiffs have adequately pled both that they are seeking “significant relief” from Landau and that Landau’s alleged conduct forms a “significant basis” for their claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Class Action Fairness Act / Jurisdiction. The panel affirmed the district court’s order remanding to state court, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act’s (“CAFA”) local controversy exception, a case in which plaintiffs alleged that The Boeing Company released toxins into the groundwater around its facility in Auburn, Washington and that Landau Associates was negligent in the investigation and remediation of the pollution. The panel held that the plaintiffs, who are 108 individuals who have property near the Boeing facility, adequately pled both that they were seeking “significant relief” from Landau, and that Landau’s alleged conduct formed a “significant basis” for their claims, as required by CAFA’s local controversy exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i). ALLEN V. BOEING CO. 5
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.