In an August 23, 2013 opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Walker v. Trailer Transit, Inc., held that since the defendant did not receive a pleading or other paper from the plaintiff specifically making the damages demand required for removal under CAFA, removal of the case was timely because the 30-day time period for removal was not triggered.

Plaintiff Walker filed a class action complaint in Indiana state court alleging that the defendant, Trailer Transit, violated its lease agreements with him and hundreds of other truckers by failing to pay a portion of the revenues to which they were entitled under the agreements. The complaint alleged a measure of damages that apparently would not have satisfied CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional minimum. But in the plaintiffs' opposition to Trailer Transit's summary judgment motion, they stated that there were two ways in which the jury could award damages.

After receipt of the plaintiffs' summary judgment response, Trailer Transit sent an e-mail to the plaintiffs' attorney to clarify which measure of damages the plaintiffs sought. The plaintiffs responded by copying and pasting their summary judgment response that referred to the two theories of damages. Trailer Transit then served requests for admission on the theory of damages. At this time, the plaintiffs admitted to seeking the larger measure of damages, which was not the one pleaded in the complaint.

Within 30 days of the admission, Trailer Transit removed the case to federal court under CAFA. The district court denied the plaintiffs' remand motion because it found no clear disclosure that the damages requirement was met under CAFA.

The plaintiffs petitioned for permission to appeal. The Seventh Circuit granted the petition, noting that this was the first time that it had addressed the standard for determining when the 30-day period for removal begins to run under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).

On the merits, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the 30-day removal period is triggered only when the defendant receives a pleading or other litigation paper that affirmatively and unambiguously demands damages sufficient to justify removal. The court reasoned that a bright-line rule is easier to administer, discourages evasive or unclear pleading and reduces unnecessary removals. The court also observed that other circuits considering the issue have all reached the same result.

The Seventh Circuit held that the 30-day removal period was not triggered here because Trailer Transit did not receive a paper specifically disclosing the amount of damages being sought. The court found that neither the plaintiff's response to Trailer Transit's summary judgment motion, e-mail nor request for admission affirmatively specified the damages amount.

Practitioners seeking to remove or remand a case in the Seventh Circuit should be aware that the court will apply Section 1446(b)(3) literally by holding that the 30-day removal period is triggered only when the defendant receives a pleading or other litigation paper that affirmatively and unambiguously requests damages that satisfy the jurisdictional minimum.