MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, CHIEF JUDGE.

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Doc. 8], filed on August 21, 2012. Defendant Quicken Loans, Inc., filed its Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Doc. 11] on September 4, 2012. On the same day, defendant Richard Hyett filed his Response to Motion to Remand [Doc. 12]. Defendants Dewey V. Guida and Appraisals Unlimited, Inc., filed their Response to Motion to Remand [Doc. 13] on September 7, 2012. Title Source, Inc., d/b/a Title Source Inc. Of West Virginia, Incorporated, did not file a response to the Motion to Remand. Plaintiffs filed their Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Their Motion to Remand [Doc. 14] on September 12, 2012. This Court, having reviewed the motion and the memoranda submitted with regard thereto, finds that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Doc. 8] should be GRANTED for the following reasons.

I. Background

On December 27, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, on behalf of themselves as well as a proposed class of West Virginians; on June 21, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an Amended First Complaint in the state proceeding [Doc. 1-1 at 5-25]. The proposed plaintiff class was tentatively defined as the following:

[Id. at 15-16].

The lawsuit was brought against Quicken Loans, Inc. ("Quicken"), Title Source, Inc., d/b/a Title Source Inc. of West Virginia, Incorporated ("Title Source"), and a class of defendant appraisers, represented by Appraisals Unlimited, Inc., Dewey V. Guida, and Richard Hyett [Id. at 5-6]. The proposed class of defendant appraisers was defined by the plaintiffs as the following:

[Id. at 16].

In the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs bring eight causes of actions against the defendants on behalf of themselves and the proposed class [See id. at 17-21]. In addition, the plaintiffs bring two causes of action against the defendants on behalf of only themselves [Id. at 21-23].1

On July 23, 2012, defendant Quicken filed a Notice of Removal [Doc. 1] with this Court. In the Notice of Removal, defendant Quicken stated that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA")) [Id. at 1]. On August 21, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand [Doc. 10]. In the motion to remand, plaintiffs concede that the lawsuit meets the requirements for federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) [Doc. 8-1 at 5]. However, plaintiffs state that (1) all of the proposed plaintiff class members are citizens of West Virginia [Id. at 6-7]; (2) the class of defendant appraisers consists of West Virginia citizens whose conduct forms a significant basis for the class claims and from whom the plaintiffs seek significant relief [Id. at 7-9]; (3) the principal injuries to the proposed plaintiff class were incurred in West Virginia [Id. at 9]; and (4) no other similar class actions have been filed in the previous three years [Id.]. As such, the plaintiffs argue that the action falls under the "local controversy" exception to CAFA, thereby precluding federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A) [Id. at 1]. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that remand is mandatory [Id. at 6, citing Martin v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3259418, at *3, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84903, at *9 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 18, 2010); and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)].

Defendant Quicken argues that the plaintiffs are seeking relief mainly from it, a Michigan company [Doc. 11 at 2]. As such, defendant Quicken argues that the "local controversy" exception should not apply to this case [Id.]. In particular, Quicken argues that there is no West Virginia citizen defendant from whom the plaintiffs seek significant relief and whose conduct forms a significant basis for the plaintiffs' lawsuit [Id. at 3-4]. In his response, defendant Hyett states that he opposes the plaintiffs' motion to remand and joins in defendant Quicken's, response [Doc. 12]. In their response, defendants Dewey V. Guida and Appraisals Unlimited, Inc., also state that they oppose the motion to remand and join in defendant Quicken's, response [Doc. 13]. Defendant Title Source filed no response to the plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

II. Applicable Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), a district court has jurisdiction over certain class action lawsuits. "CAFA authorizes the removal of any civil action which is a class action in which (1) `the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,' 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); (2) `any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant,' id. § 1332(d)(2)(A); and (3) there are 100 or more plaintiff class members, id. § 1332(d)(5)(B)." West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharm., Inc., 646 F.3d 169, 174 (4th Cir.2011).2 The removing party must prove these three elements by a preponderance of the evidence. See Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932, 935 (4th Cir.2008).

In the event these three elements are satisfied, CAFA requires that "[a] district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction" over a class action law suit that meets the following conditions: (1) more than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class are citizens of the State in which the lawsuit was originally filed; (2) at least one defendant (a) is a defendant from whom the plaintiff class is seeking significant relief, (b) is a defendant whose conduct "forms a significant basis" for the plaintiff class's claims, and (c) is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; (3) the principal injuries stemming from the conduct alleged in the complaint occurred in the State in which the action was originally filed; and (4) in the three years preceding the complaint, no other similar class action was filed against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other class. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). This is commonly known as the "local controversy" exception. See Eakins v. Pella Corp., 455 F.Supp.2d 450, 451 (E.D.N.C.2006). A plaintiff seeking remand pursuant to a CAFA exception must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the particular exception applies. See Johnson, 549 F.3d at 934-935.

Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b) "eliminates at least three of the traditional limitations on removal: (1) the rule that, in a diversity case, a defendant cannot remove a case from its home forum, § 1441(b); (2) the rule that a defendant cannot remove a diversity case once it has been pending in state court for more than a year, § 1446(b); and (3) the rule that all defendants must consent to removal...." Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 331 (4th Cir.2008) (internal citations omitted).

III. Discussion

Before addressing whether the local controversy exception applies to this proceeding, this Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to CAFA. This Court first finds that the $5,000,000 amount in controversy has been established.3 Next, this Court notes that the minimum diversity requirement has been met because the plaintiffs are West Virginia citizens and defendant Quicken is a citizen of Michigan.4 Finally, this Court finds that the third requirement has been met because there are 100 or more members of the plaintiff class.5 Furthermore, this Court notes that the parties do not dispute that all three CAFA requirements have been established in this case [Doc. 1 at 4-10; Doc. 8-1 at 5].

Having determined that it has jurisdiction of this proceeding pursuant to CAFA, this Court must next address whether it is required to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under the local controversy exception. The plaintiffs argue that the local controversy exception applies in this proceeding, requiring this Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA. The parties agree that the proposed plaintiff class meets the first element that more than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class are citizens of the State in which the lawsuit was originally filed [Doc. 8-1 at 6-7; Doc. 11 at 3; Doc. 12 at 1; and Doc. 13 at 1]; in fact, the proposed plaintiff class consists of only West Virginia citizens [See Doc. 1-1 at 15] and, therefore, does indeed meet the first requirement. In addition, the parties agree that the third element has been met in this case [Doc. 8-1 at 9; Doc. 11 at 3; Doc. 12 at 1; and Doc. 13 at 1]; this Court agrees because, based upon the proposed plaintiff class, the loans at issue all occurred in West Virginia and were obtained by West Virginia citizens [See Doc. 1-1 at 15-16]. Finally, the parties agree that the fourth element has been established because no other similar class actions have been filed in the previous three years [Doc. 8-1 at 9; Doc. 11 at 3; Doc. 12 at 1; and Doc. 13 at 1]; this Court agrees.6

As such, the only element of this exception in dispute is the second element — whether the class of defendant appraisers qualifies as a significant local defendant. In other words, plaintiffs must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the class of defendant appraisers is a local defendant from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis of the class claims asserted. As explained below, this Court concludes that plaintiffs have made this showing.

A. Significant Relief

The term "significant relief" is ambiguous and has yet to be interpreted by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Fourth Circuit"). Although the Fourth Circuit has not interpreted the phrase "significant relief," the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eleventh Circuit") has held that "a class seeks `significant relief' against a defendant when the relief sought against the defendant is a significant portion of the entire relief sought." Evans v. Walter Indus., 449 F.3d 1159, 1167 (11th Cir.2006) (citation omitted). The court in Evans further explained that the significant relief test requires a comparative analysis that "includes not only an assessment of how many members of the class were harmed by the defendant's actions, but also a comparison of the relief sought between all defendants and each defendant's ability to pay a potential judgment." Id. (citation omitted). This Court has applied the Eleventh Circuit's standard in a recent decision pertaining to the local controversy exception. See Carter v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3637239, *9 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 21, 2012).7

First, under a comparative analysis regarding harm, this Court notes that the loans at issue were obtained through the alleged false appraisals provided by the class of defendant appraisers. As such, although this Court does not have an exact number of members of the class who were harmed by the defendant's actions, the standard practices alleged in the First Amended Complaint began with the appraisals obtained from the class of defendant appraisers. Accordingly, this Court finds that this factor does weigh in favor of finding that the plaintiffs are seeking significant relief from the class of defendant appraisers.

Next, under the comparative analysis regarding relief sought from the defendants, the defendants argue that the "[p]laintiffs failed to submit any evidence or assessment of the value of the relief they are seeking" [Doc. 11 at 4; Doc. 12; and Doc. 13]. However, in support of the plaintiffs' claim that they are seeking significant relief from the class of defendant appraisers, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted a declaration providing examples of relief obtained in cases involving an appraiser defendant and a lender defendant [Doc. 14-8 at 2]. The plaintiffs argue that these examples demonstrate that the "appraisers ma[de] significant contributions to the overall settlements" of those cases and demonstrate that the plaintiffs are seeking significant relief from the appraisers in this case [Id. at 2-3]. This Court agrees. Mr. Causey's declaration lists recovery from the appraisers in the sample cases ranging from $35,000 to $500,000 and from 23% to 87% of the total recovery [Id. at 3]. As such, this Court finds that this factor again weighs in favor of finding that the plaintiffs are seeking significant relief from the class of defendant appraisers.

Finally, with regard to the comparative analysis regarding each defendant's ability to pay relief, the defendants argue that the representative defendants are not likely to satisfy a judgment [Doc. 11 at 6; Doc. 12; and Doc. 13]. The defendants state that (1) Appraisals Unlimited, Inc., filed articles of dissolution on May 18, 2012 [Doc. 11-1], (2) Dewey V. Guida filed a bankruptcy petition on March 3, 2011 [Doc. 11-2], and (3) an Ohio insurance company is funding the Richard Hyett's defense and cost of judgment [Doc. 11-3]. The defendants argue that, as such, there is no evidence that significant relief will come from these named representatives of the class of defendant appraisers [Doc. 11 at 6; Doc. 12; and Doc. 13, citing Laws v. Priority Tr. Servs. of N.C., 2008 WL 3539512 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2008) (ruling that because local defendant had no assets, plaintiffs could not meet "significant relief" requirement because all monetary relief would be sought from out-of-state defendant)]. The plaintiffs reply that the Guida bankruptcy petition was dismissed [Doc. 14-10] and that they "reasonably anticipate that relief will be obtained from ... insurers" with regard to other individual appraiser defendants [Doc. 14 at 13]. Even if insurers were not a sufficient basis to find that this factor weighs in favor of the significant relief requirement, the other two factors do weigh in favor of such a finding. Accordingly, the various comparative analyses lead this Court to conclude that the significant relief requirement has been met in this case.

B. Significant Basis

The term "significant basis" has yet to be interpreted by the Fourth Circuit. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ("Third Circuit") has held that this component of the local controversy exception requires that there be "at least one local defendant whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for all the claims asserted in the action." Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144, 155 (3d Cir.2009) (emphasis added). In addition, the Third Circuit has stated that "[t]he local defendant's alleged conduct must be an important ground for the asserted claims in view of the alleged conduct of all the [d]efendants." Id. at 157. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eighth Circuit") has adopted the same approach. Westerfeld v. Independent Processing, LLC, 621 F.3d 819, 825 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Kaufman, 561 F.3d at 157). In addition, this Court has utilized this approach in a recent decision pertaining to the local controversy exception. See Carter, 2012 WL 3637239 at *10.

Under the analysis for this element, a court can consider various factors, such as the following:

Kaufman, 561 F.3d at 157 n. 13 (listing examples of factors to be considered by the district court on remand in preparing an analysis of the local and non-local defendants' alleged conduct).

Upon a review of the relevant factors, this Court determines that the plaintiffs have established that the alleged conduct of the class of defendant appraisers forms a significant basis of the alleged claims in this proceeding. First, this Court notes that the loans at issue in this proceeding were obtained based upon the allegedly false appraisals.8 As such, the factors pertaining to the importance and nature of the claims support a finding that the significant basis requirement has been met in this proceeding. Although the defendants argue that neither joint and several liability nor a theory of conspiracy is sufficient to establish the significant basis requirement [Doc. 11 at 7],9 this Court does not reach its conclusion merely on the alleged enterprise among the defendants. Instead, this Court finds that the alleged conduct of the class of defendant appraisers plays a vital and necessary role in the alleged enterprise because the loans were obtained through the allegedly false appraisals.10

Next, this Court notes that the factors pertaining to the number of claims supports the same conclusion regarding the significant basis requirement. Defendants argue that the fact that four of the ten counts contained in the First Amended Complaint do not pertain to the class of defendant appraisers indicates that the alleged conduct of the class of defendant appraisers does not form a significant basis of the lawsuit [Doc. 11 at 9; Doc. 12; and Doc. 13]. The plaintiffs reply that, although four of the counts were not filed against the class of defendant appraisers, those claims are still based upon the alleged conduct of the defendant appraisers class in that the loans were entered into based upon the appraisals [Doc. 14 at 9]. Moreover, two of those claims directly refer to the false appraisals [Doc. 1-1 at 18, and 20-21]. This Court concludes that the majority of the counts contained in the First Amended Complaint directly relate to the alleged conduct of the class of defendant appraisers. See Kaufman, 561 F.3d at 155-56 ("The provision does not require that the local defendant's alleged conduct form a basis of each claim asserted; it requires that the local defendant's alleged conduct form a significant basis of all the claims asserted."). In addition, nearly all of the counts are a direct or indirect result of the alleged conduct of the class of defendant appraisers because such conduct formed the foundation of the loans. Accordingly, the factors pertaining to the number of claims provide further support for the conclusion that the significant basis requirement has been met with regard to the class of defendant appraisers.

The Court next examines the identity of and relationship among the defendants as well as the approximate number of members of the plaintiff class. The defendants argue that the definition of the proposed plaintiff class indicates that the defendant appraisers class is merely "peripheral" [Doc. 11 at 8 (citing Eakins, 455 F.Supp.2d at 452); Doc 12; and Doc. 13]. However, this Court disagrees. In their First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs allege standard practices by Quicken, which include references to the actions of other defendants [Doc. 1-2 at 8-10]. In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the standard practices pertaining to illegal fees and unsigned documents occurred after Quicken was able to obtain a loan based upon a false appraisal [Id. at 9]. As such, the class of defendant appraisers is not merely peripheral because their conduct serves as the basis of each loan and claim. Moreover, the impact of the appraisals on the loans and the members of the plaintiff class11 further supports the conclusion that the alleged conduct of the class of defendant appraisers forms a significant basis of the claims in this proceeding.

As such, based upon the relevant factors, this Court concludes that the plaintiffs have established their burden to demonstrate that the alleged conduct of the class of defendant appraisers forms a significant basis of the claims in this case. Because the plaintiffs have met both the significant relief and significant basis requirements, this Court is not able to retain jurisdiction in this case under CAFA and must remand the proceeding to state court based upon the local controversy exception.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Doc. 8] is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record herein.