“Dual-Track Appeals & the Residency Presumption” – New Fourth-Circuit Precedent on Reviewing CAFA Remand Orders

Introduction

In Television Tower, Inc. v. Goldberg, Nos. 24-141/142 & 24-1250/1251, decided 1 Aug 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit confronted two intertwined questions of federal-jurisdiction procedure:

• Can a defendant appeal a district-court order remanding a putative class action to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, or must it proceed exclusively through CAFA’s special 10-day petition route in § 1453(c)?
• What evidentiary burden must plaintiffs satisfy to invoke CAFA’s “local-controversy” exception, particularly its citizenship and “significant basis / significant relief” prongs?

Judge Wynn, writing for a unanimous panel, held that (1) § 1291 remains an independent and sufficient avenue for appellate review of remand orders that are not barred by § 1447(d), rendering § 1453’s 10-day petition procedure non-exclusive; and (2) plaintiffs may satisfy the local-controversy citizenship requirement by a rebuttable presumption that residency equals citizenship, while the “significant basis/relief” requirement demands only that the local defendant be an important, not the most important, target of the lawsuit.

Summary of the Judgment

Residents living near Baltimore’s 1,300-foot television tower sued its owner, Television Tower, Inc. (“TTI”), and its contractor, Skyline Tower Painting, Inc. (“Skyline”), alleging negligent hydro-blasting of lead paint. Defendants removed under CAFA. The district court remanded, invoking CAFA’s “local-controversy” exception (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)). Defendants filed both:

• a 10-day petition for permission to appeal under § 1453(c), and
• a standard notice of appeal under § 1291.

The Fourth Circuit:

1. Jurisdiction – Declared that § 1291 confers appellate jurisdiction over such remand orders because § 1447(d)’s bar does not apply when remand is premised on CAFA’s discretionary/abstention exceptions rather than a jurisdictional defect.
2. Dismissed the § 1453 petitions as “unnecessary” since § 1291 sufficed.
3. Affirmed the remand order, holding that plaintiffs carried their burden to show:
   • over two-thirds of class members are Maryland citizens, proven through property-tax records and a rebuttable residency-citizenship presumption;
   • TTI (a Maryland citizen) is a defendant from whom significant relief is sought and whose conduct forms a significant basis of the claims, even if Skyline’s conduct is also significant.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976) – Limited § 1447(d)’s review bar to remands based on § 1447(c) grounds (jurisdictional defect or removal-procedure defect). Forms the doctrinal backbone permitting § 1291 review.
• Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995) & Quackenbush v. Allstate, 517 U.S. 706 (1996) – Reaffirmed Thermtron’s narrow reading of § 1447(d).
• Hinson v. Norwest Financial S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611 (4th Cir. 2001) – Earlier Fourth-Circuit statement that non-§ 1447(c) remands are appealable under § 1291.
• Cheapside Minerals, Ltd. v. Devon Energy Production Co., 94 F.4th 492 (5th Cir. 2024); Simring v. GreenSky, LLC, 29 F.4th 1262 (11th Cir. 2022); Jacks v. Meridian Resources, 701 F.3d 1224 (8th Cir. 2012) – Sister-circuit cases treating § 1291 as an alternative to § 1453(c); the Fourth Circuit aligns itself with this tri-circuit consensus.
• Mason v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C., 842 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2016) – Endorsed the historical presumption that residency implies domicile; relied upon in adopting the rebuttable presumption for CAFA citizenship.
• Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2009) – Articulated a comparative rather than superlative test for the “significant basis / relief” prongs; heavily cited.
• Kress Stores of P.R., Inc. v. Wal-Mart P.R., Inc., 121 F.4th 228 (1st Cir. 2024) – Rejected a “plus-factor” requirement; Fourth Circuit now follows this view.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Dual Pathways for Appeal (§ 1291 vs § 1453(c))

• Because CAFA remand orders based on the local-controversy exception are not jurisdictional defects under § 1447(c), § 1447(d) does not bar review. • § 1453(c)’s 10-day petition process is non-exclusive; it co-exists with the ordinary appeal of right. • Practical consequence: counsel may safely file a regular notice of appeal within 30 days; the stringent 10-day CAFA petition is optional.

b. Standard of Proof for CAFA Exceptions

• Removing defendants bear a preponderance burden to establish CAFA jurisdiction. • Plaintiffs similarly shoulder a preponderance burden to prove any CAFA exception. • The Court rejects arguments for either a heightened or a diluted standard, aligning with the uniform practice of other circuits.

c. Rebuttable Presumption: Residency → Citizenship

• For individuals, “citizenship” equals domicile. • Historical and pragmatic considerations justify treating statewide residency evidence as prima facie proof of domicile, shifting the burden of rebuttal to defendants. • Here, property-tax records showing that 84 %+ of property owners list a Maryland “principal residence” sufficed; defendants provided no contrary evidence.

d. “Significant Basis” & “Significant Relief” Prongs

• The Court adopts a comparative, not “superlative,” test – a local defendant need only be an important focus, not the largest or the sole focus. • Statutory text uses “a significant basis,” unlike the “primary defendant” language in CAFA’s home-state exception. • TTI’s alleged ownership, knowledge of lead paint, permitting failures, and supervision of Skyline made its conduct “significant”; plaintiffs also sought remediation and punitive damages against it – ample to meet both prongs.

3. Impact of the Judgment

• Procedural Certainty – Litigants in the Fourth Circuit may now rely on § 1291 for CAFA remand appeals, avoiding the 10-day rush unless they strategically prefer § 1453(c).
• Forum-Choice Strategy – Plaintiffs’ bar gains a clearer path to keep truly local disputes in state court by using reliable, low-cost residence data; defendants must assemble affirmative evidence to rebut citizenship.
• National Uniformity Trend – The Fourth Circuit joins three other circuits, creating a four-way alignment that may influence the Supreme Court if the minority Tenth-Circuit view deepens into a split.
• Environmental-Tort Litigation – The decision illustrates that local owners of hazardous facilities may remain in state court even when they hire out-of-state contractors, provided plaintiffs meet the clarified standards.
• Judicial Economy – By treating residency as presumptive citizenship, district courts can resolve local-controversy motions without invasive discovery into thousands of class members.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) – A 2005 statute expanding federal jurisdiction over class actions if (a) at least 100 class members, (b) minimal diversity (any class member different from any defendant), and (c) > $5 million in controversy.
• Local-Controversy Exception – A mandatory abstention rule: if a class is overwhelmingly local and a key in-state defendant exists, federal courts must decline jurisdiction.
• § 1291 vs § 1453(c)
  • § 1291: Ordinary “appeal of right” from final district-court decisions; 30-day deadline; no page-limit petition.
  • § 1453(c): Special CAFA mechanism; 10-day petition; court must resolve in 60-70 days; formerly thought exclusive.
• § 1447(c) & (d) – Statutes limiting appellate review when remand is based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or removal-procedure defects. Thermtron limits the scope of this bar.
• Residency vs Citizenship/Domicile – A U.S. citizen’s domicile is the state where they intend to remain indefinitely; residency is where they actually live. The Court treats residency as presumptive proof of domicile for CAFA exception purposes, unless rebutted.

Conclusion

Television Tower, Inc. v. Goldberg cements two significant propositions of federal class-action practice in the Fourth Circuit:

1. Defendants may invoke the ordinary § 1291 appellate pathway to challenge CAFA remand orders not covered by § 1447(d), relegating § 1453(c) to an optional, not mandatory, track.
2. Plaintiffs can establish the local-controversy exception through a pragmatic, evidence-based approach:
   • use government records to create a rebuttable residency-citizenship presumption, and
   • show that the local defendant’s conduct and sought relief are “important,” even if not predominant, relative to other defendants.

These clarifications should reduce procedural gamesmanship, streamline jurisdictional contests, and ensure that genuinely local disputes—particularly environmental torts affecting a single community—remain within state judiciaries, while preserving federal fora for interstate controversies of national significance.