Kendrick v. Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., et al., 18-cv-00213 (N.D. Cal. 2018). In granting plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in California found that an action may be deemed a state action under section 1332(d)(5) if there is such a close nexus between the State and the challenged action that private behavior may be fairly treated as actions of the State. Plaintiffs brought a putative class action asserting state law claims…

Join us at ACI’s 25th National Forum on Residential Mortgage Regulatory Enforcement and Litigation, October 22-24 in Dallas, Texas. McGlinchey Stafford is proud to be a supporting sponsor of the conference, and the CAFA Law Blog will serve as this year’s conference media partner.…

McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-cv-00172 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 2018). In this action, while remanding a case to state court, a district court in Missouri found that the plaintiffs’ burden of proof, as the party invoking the local controversy exception, is by a “preponderance” or more than 50% of the evidence.…

Join us at ACI’s 25th National Forum on Residential Mortgage Regulatory Enforcement and Litigation, October 22-24 in Dallas, Texas. McGlinchey Stafford is proud to be a supporting sponsor of the conference, and the CAFA Law Blog will serve as this year’s conference media partner.…

Robertson v. Sun Life Financial, 2:17-cv-02148-SSV-JVM (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2018) In this action, a Louisiana District Court denied a motion to remand, finding that the Plaintiff’s generic demand for damages from a “local” defendant was insufficient to justify remanding the case pursuant to CAFA’s Local Controversy exception.…

Join us at ACI’s 25th National Forum on Residential Mortgage Regulatory Enforcement and Litigation, October 22-24 in Dallas, Texas. McGlinchey Stafford is proud to be a supporting sponsor of the conference, and the CAFA Law Blog will serve as this year’s conference media partner.…

Pattison v. Omnitrition International, Inc. No. 2:17-cv-01454 (W. D. Wa. Jan. 5, 2018). In this action, while granting the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the order remanding the matter to state court, a District Court in Washington found that the defendants’ declarant was not required to attach underlying documentation to support her statements, as her sworn declaration itself served as factual evidence supporting the amount-in-controversy. The plaintiff brought a putative class action in the Superior…