E.D.N.C. Follows 5th, 7th & 11th Circuits in Holding Plaintiffs Challenging CAFA Removal Bear Burden of Proving CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception

Per Eakins v. Pella Corp., 455 F.Supp.2d 450 (E.D. N.C. Sept. 27, 2006):

It is well established that the party requesting removal to federal court has the burden of proving that such removal is warranted. Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir.1994). Less clear is which party bears the burden of proving an exception to CAFA requires remand, and is one of first impression in this Circuit. The Fifth, Eleventh and Seventh Circuits have held that once the removing party proves the prima facie case for removal, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the local controversy exception should apply. Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC, 455 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir.2006) ("Here, longstanding § 1441(a) doctrine placing the burden on the plaintiffs to show exceptions to jurisdiction buttresses the clear congressional intent to do the same with CAFA."); Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159, 1165 (11th Cir.2006) ("[W]e hold that the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the local controversy exception to the jurisdiction otherwise established."); Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir.2006) ("[T]he party seeking to take advantage of the home-state or local exception to CAFA jurisdiction has the burden of showing it applies."). The Senate Report on CAFA supports this view. S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 109-14 (2005) ("It is the Committee's intention with regard to each of these exceptions that the party opposing federal jurisdiction shall have the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption."). Finding no reason to depart from the analysis and conclusions of other circuits or Congress, the Court holds that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the local controversy exception warrants remand to state court.