Country Mutual Insurance Company v. Angela Sudholt, et al.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 expanded fed“interstate cases of naeral-court jurisdiction over "interstate importance.” Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, tional importance." sec. 2(a)(4), (b)(2), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4. Congress specified narrow exceptions to that jurisdiction, two of which are at issue here. First, under the "home“homestate” exception, federal courts may not hear class acstate" “the primary defendants tions where "the defendants[] [1 are citizens of filed.” 28 the State in which the action was originally filed." U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). Second, under the "internal“internalaffairs” affairs" exception, federal courts may not hear “any "any class action that solely involves a claim * * * that relates to the internal affairs or governance of a corporation.” Id. § 1332(d)(9)(B). ration." The questions presented are: defendant’s

1. Whether a court should consider a defendant's ability to pay a judgment when determining whether “primary defendant" the defendant is a "primary defendant” under CAFA's CAFA’s home-state exception, as the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have held, or whether a court should instead de“real target" termine if the defendant is the "real target” of the litigation, as the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held.

2. Whether a class action should be remanded to state court under CAFA’s CAFA's internal-affairs exception “look beyond" even if it requires a factfinder to "look beyond” the internal affairs of a corporation and evaluate other legal issues, as the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held, or whether such a case should remain in federal court, as the Fourth Circuit has held. (i)