Federal District Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Remand Class Action to State Court Because Defense Established Jurisdiction Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
Plaintiff filed a putative antitrust class action against Intel Corporation in state court, which the defense removed to federal court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act). The district court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the class action to state court, and plaintiff moved for reconsideration. In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 436 F.Supp.2d 687 (D. Del. 2006). The district court explained that it refused to remand the lawsuit to state court because the defense “had carried its burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists” because the defense “carr[ied] its burden of setting out the amount in controversy” and plaintiff did not “establish to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy was less than the statutorily required $5,000,000.” Id., at 688. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration argued that the district court erred by (1) failing to consider his evidence concerning the amount in controversy, and (2) accepting Intel’s estimate which was based on the cost of the computer as a whole rather than the cost of the microprocessor itself. Id., at 689. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion.
First, the district court explained that in connection with the motion to remand it had “fully considered [plaintiff’s] evidence, but found it unpersuasive.” In re Intel, at 689. Second, the court agreed with Intel that the damages recoverable under Kansas state law would include the price of the personal computer itself, not simply the microprocessor within the computer. Id. Further, the district court found that the amount in controversy would exceed $5 million even if it was limited to the cost of the microprocessors in light of the number of computers at issue, the potential for treble damages and attorney fees, and the cost of producing a microprocessor. Id., at 690.