On February 18, 2016, a group of Flint, Michigan residents filed this class action lawsuit in the Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Genesee. The plaintiffs sued Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C. and a related corporate entity under state law. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that Lockwood, a company that helped Flint switch its water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River, negligently caused Flint residents to be supplied with water contaminated by lead and other biological and chemical agents and failed to warn residents about the health risks. The plaintiffs claimed that they sustained serious bodily injury, property damage, depreciation of property value, and emotional harm and resulting stress-related physical symptoms as a result. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.

The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on February 23, 2016, which the plaintiffs opposed.

On May 11, 2016, the district court (Judge John Corbett O’Meara) remanded the case to state court. In Judge O’Meara’s view, the dispute was “a truly local controversy” ill-suited to a federal forum. Judge O’Meara noted that the plaintiffs’ negligence claims did not involve a substantial federal question and that the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) could not support federal jurisdiction because CAFA’s local controversy exception applied: there was a significant local defendant, more than two-thirds of the proposed class were Michiganders, the injuries happened in Michigan, and there was no similar class action against any of the defendants.

The defendants appealed. On November 16, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision. Judge Richard A. Griffin (joined by Judge Bernice B. Donald) wrote that the case “exemplifies the quintessential local controversy” and found that CAFA’s local controversy exception applied. Judge Raymond M. Kethledge dissented, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient proof that at least two-thirds of the members of the putative class were Michiganders or that the conduct of a Michigan defendant formed a significant basis for the claim.

The case is now ongoing in Michigan state court. As of November 19, 2019, the parties are engaged in discovery.

Peter Harding - 10/18/2019
Nora Baty - 11/20/2019


compress summary