STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Jurisdiction exists as to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Ex. D-22) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and as to this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c). The CAFA remand order (Ex. A) issued December 10, 2012; thus the Petition is timely. STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court reviews issues of subject matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation 561 F.3d 144, de novo. Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co., 151 (3d Cir. 2009) . Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1453(c)(1) an order remanding a CAFA case is reviewed 574 F.3d 267, 272 de novo. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Abshire, (5th Cir. 2009) 130 S. Ct. 756. Ordinarily the court reviews a remand cert. denied order for abuse of discretion, but that is a product of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)’s bar to review of most non-discretionary remand orders. See Certain Underwriters at 461 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 2006). Lloyd’s, London v. Warrantech Corp., STATEMENT OF FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 1965, Harvey Alumina constructed a refinery for the removal of The site. alumina from bauxite ore. The alumina refinery (“Site”) was situated within what is known as St. Croix’s South Coast Industrial Area (“SCIA”). Comm’r of the 2012 WL 446086 at Dep’t of Planning & Natural Res. v. Century Aluminum Co., *2 (D.V.I. Feb. 13, 2012) (“Century”). The SCIA contains an eastern tract with an oil refinery and a western tract close to the airport with the 1512.182 acre Site. Id.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Jurisdiction exists as to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Ex. D-22) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and as to this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c). The CAFA remand order (Ex. A) issued December 10, 2012; thus the Petition is timely. STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court reviews issues of subject matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation de novo. Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144, 151 (3d Cir. 2009) . Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1453(c)(1) an order remanding a CAFA case is reviewed de novo. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Abshire, 574 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 2009) cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 756. Ordinarily the court reviews a remand order for abuse of discretion, but that is a product of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)’s bar to review of most non-discretionary remand orders. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Warrantech Corp., 461 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 2006). STATEMENT OF FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED The site. In 1965, Harvey Alumina constructed a refinery for the removal of alumina from bauxite ore. The alumina refinery (“Site”) was situated within what is known as St. Croix’s South Coast Industrial Area (“SCIA”). Comm’r of the Dep’t of Planning & Natural Res. v. Century Aluminum Co., 2012 WL 446086 at *2 (D.V.I. Feb. 13, 2012) (“Century”). The SCIA contains an eastern tract with an oil refinery and a western tract close to the airport with the 1512.182 acre Site. Id.
SCRG%20Petition%20-as%20filed.docx