Mazzucco v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 2011 WL 6936353 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011) (district judge opinion).

In this action, a District Court in New Jersey held that because a human resource employee cannot be held personally liable for implementing a work policy or procedure, he is not a significant defendant under the local controversy exception to CAFA.  (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of the Magistrate Judge’s opinion posted on March 21, 2012).

The plaintiff, Ronald Mazzucco, brought an action on behalf of all current and former employees of the defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc.’s facility in New Jersey, seeking damages for alleged violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”). The plaintiff alleged that he was required to don and doff protective equipment, uniforms, or other equipment, and walk to and from their work location without compensation for those activities. (It is good to know they are working to keep their hair, etc. out of our food while they prepare it).

Kraft removed the case to the federal court contending that the claims, inter alia were properly before the federal court under CAFA. 

The plaintiff moved to remand the case. 

The magistrate judge recommended that the plaintiff’s motion to remand be denied.

The magistrate judge had held that Kraft had established the threshold requirements for removal under CAFA, § 1332(d)(2) – (1) amount in controversy; (2) diversity of parties; (3) and numerosity. The magistrate judge had also found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the action fell with the “local controversy” exception to CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). 

Specifically, the plaintiff argued before the magistrate judge that because he sought significant relief from the local defendant Jamey Martin – Human Resources employee of Kraft – remand was apt under the local controversy exception. In support of his contention that Martin was a defendant from whom significant relief was sought, the plaintiff stated that Martin could be held personally liable under the New Jersey’s definition of employer. The plaintiff cited to N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(g), which reads that employer includes any individual, partnership, association, corporation or any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. As the plaintiff failed to address the nature of the claims raised against Martin and the non-local defendant, Kraft, and also as the plaintiff failed to show that it was Martin who implemented Kraft’s overtime policies, the magistrate judge found that Martin was not a significant defendant.

The plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The District Court, however, denied the plaintiff’s objections, and adopted the report and recommendations in full.

The District Court noted that to show that the local controversy exception is applicable, the plaintiff must demonstrate that one of the named defendants is a defendant (1) from whom significant relief is sought; (2) whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and (3) who is a citizen of the state in which the action was originally filed.

The District Court noted that the magistrate judge determined that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden in connection with prongs one and two of this three-prong analysis.  Specifically, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Martin was a defendant from whom significant relief was sought, and whose alleged conduct formed a significant basis for the claims asserted, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(II)(aa)(bb). As such, the magistrate judge concluded that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proving that the local controversy exception applied.

The plaintiff took issue with that conclusion, and in his objection to the District Court argued that the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the plaintiff had failed to meet the burden of proving Martin was a defendant from whom significant relief was sought was incorrect. The plaintiff’s objection acknowledged that while the plaintiff was unable to find any precedent explicitly finding a human resources employee liable under LAD (law against discrimination), it was important to note that neither the defendants nor the magistrate judge had cited to any precedent holding that a human resources employee is not liable for such conduct as alleged in this case, the District Court remarked. 

The Court found that the plaintiff’s argument was misplaced. The law in the Third Circuit is clear: “once CAFA jurisdiction has been established, the party seeking remand has the burden of showing that the local controversy exception applies”. Thus, the District Court found that burden lied with the plaintiff – not the Court or the defendants–to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the local controversy exception was warranted. Thus, the District Court agreed with the magistrate judge that the plaintiff’s “conclusory statements that significant relief is sought” coupled with the lack of “case law to support the contention that a human resource employee can be held personally liable for implementing a work policy or procedure” was insufficient. To that end, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that Martin–the human resources representative–was a defendant from whom significant relief was sought, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(II)(aa).

The District Court further found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Martin’s conduct formed a significant basis for the plaintiff’s claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(II)(bb). The Court noted that the plaintiff failed to address the relevant “areas of inquiry for determining whether the alleged conduct of a local defendant provided a significant basis for the claims asserted.” Specifically, the plaintiff failed to address: (1) the nature of the claims raised against Martin and the non-local defendant, Kraft; (2) the number of plaintiff’s claims that relied on Martin’s conduct; (3) whether Martin implemented any of the procedures at issue; and (4) the identity of the defendants and how they were related. 

For these reasons, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to sustain his burden of showing that the local controversy exception applied, and denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand.