Jocelyn Allen v. the Boeing Company

I. Background

From the 1960s to the 1990s, Boeing used solvents that allegedly contained

hazardous chemicals in its aircraft parts manufacturing plant in Auburn,

Washington. In 1987, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Department

of Ecology) initiated requirements for the treatment, storage and handling of

hazardous materials. In 2002, Boeing entered into an agreement with the

Department of Ecology to investigate and remediate releases of hazardous

substances from its manufacturing plant and retained Landau to conduct the

investigation and remediation.

In November 2013, Plaintiffs filed an action against Boeing and Landau in

King County Superior Court, Washington. Plaintiffs alleged that they “incurred

property damages as a result of groundwater contamination by hazardous

chemicals at and around” Boeing’s Auburn plant “from the 1960s to the present.”

They further alleged “that Boeing and its environmental-remediation contractor,

Landau, are liable for negligently investigating, remediating, and cleaning up the

contamination and for failing to warn Plaintiffs of the contamination.” Based on

these allegations, Plaintiffs asserted state law claims of…

Jocelyn Allen and others (Plaintiffs) sued The Boeing Company (Boeing) and Landau Associates (Landau) in a Washington state court alleging that for over forty years 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 pollution. Boeing removed the case to.the District Court for the Western District of Washington claiming federal jurisdiction based on diversity and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court remanded the case to state court holding that (1) Landau was not fraudulently joined, and thus there was not complete diversity, and (2) Plaintiffs’ action came within the local single event exception to CAFA federal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(11)(B)(ii)(I). Boeing sought and was granted leave to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (c). We hold that Plaintiffs’ action does not come within the local single event exception to CAFA, and that, therefore, the district court has federal jurisdiction under CAFA. We affirm the district court’s determination that Boeing failed to show that Landau was fraudulently joined. We…

dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion reversing the remand of this case to state court. The facts of this case fall somewhere between our decision in Nevada v. Bank of America, 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir.2012), and the Third Circuit’s decision in Abraham v. St. Croix Renaissance Group, L.L.L.P., 719 F.3d 270 (3d Cir.2013). Ultimately, I conclude that the analysis in Abraham is more persuasive on the particular issue we are called upon to decide.

*638 I am persuaded to this view by the particular facts of the respective cases. In the Nevada case, the state’s Attorney General filed an action against Bank of America, alleging that the bank “misled Nevada consumers about the terms and operation of its home mortgage modification and foreclosure processes ” Nevada, 672 F.3d at 664 . Bank of America removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (the Act). The district court denied the state’s motion to remand, and this court granted the state’s request for leave to appeal. See id. at 665 . We identified the pivotal issue as whether the action qualified as a mass action. Specifically, we considered whether the “event or…