F5 Capital v Pappas, No. 16-530 (2d Cir. April 26, 2017).
In this action, while holding that the district court retained jurisdiction, the Second Circuit found that given that CAFA was the jurisdictional anchor for the complaint and that the evident
CAFA Law Blog
Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
The CAFA Law Blog, published by McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, focuses on legal issues related to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and federal jurisdiction over class actions. It covers topics such as jurisdictional requirements under CAFA, exceptions like the local controversy and home state exceptions, removal and remand procedures, and the interplay between state and federal courts in class action litigation. The blog also discusses recent court decisions interpreting CAFA provisions, procedural strategies in class action cases, and regulatory developments affecting class action practice. It serves as a resource for understanding the nuances of federal jurisdiction and litigation strategy in class action contexts.
Latest from CAFA Law Blog - Page 10
Local Controversy Exception Cannot Be Read To Create A Jurisdictional Loophole To Defeat Federal Jurisdiction
Davenport v Lockwood Andrews & Newman et al., 2017 WL 1457945 (6th Cir. April 25, 2017).
In reversing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan’s (the “District Court”) order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remand,…
Proposal for a Bellwether-Trial Process Amounts to a Proposal to Try Their Claims Jointly Only When Bellwether Trial Has Preclusive Effect on the Plaintiffs in the Other Cases
Dunson v. Cordis Corporation, 854 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2017)
In this action, while affirming the judgment of a district court granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, the Ninth Circuit found that to constitute a trial in which the plaintiffs’…
District Court Holds Nonbinding Bellwether Trial not a Joint Trial under CAFA’s Mass Action Provision
Dunson v. Cordis Corporation, 2016 WL 5335551 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016).
A district court in California remanded actions consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery and formation of a bellwether trial process, finding the request for a nonbinding bellwether trial…
“The Significant Defendant” Element Is A Narrow Exception Carefully Drafted To Ensure That It Does Not Become A Jurisdictional Loophole
Atwood v. Peterson, No. 4:15-cv-00305 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 10, 2015).
The plaintiff brought a putative class action against Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”) and two of its district managers (“DMs”) in state court alleging violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-501(a)(2) which makes…
CFPB issues new Rule banning arbitration clauses pertaining to class actions
On July 10, 2017, the CFPB issued a press release entitled “CFPB Issues Rule to Ban Companies From Using Arbitration Clauses to Deny Groups of People Their Day in Court.” The new Rule prohibits financial contracts from having arbitration clauses…
Supreme Court denies review of remand order surrounding Flint water treatment plant class
The CAFA Law Blog previously analyzed the Sixth Circuit opinion in Mason, et al., v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newman (Nov. 16, 2016) surrounding the Flint, Michigan water treatment plant. See the CAFA Law Blog analysis here. In that opinion,…
Defendants were not Significant Defendants under CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception to Warrant Remand
Grosshart v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2016 WL 5661526 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2016).
In an action brought against an insurance company and its claims representatives, the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri (the “District…
Post Removal Amendments Can be Considered in a Motion for Remand, if the Amendments Merely Clarified the Issues Pertaining to Federal Jurisdiction under CAFA
Broadway Grill Inc v Visa Inc., 2016 WL 5390415 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016).
Plaintiff Broadway Grill, Inc. (“Broadway”) brought an action against defendants Visa Inc., Visa International Service Association, and Visa U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, “Visa”), based on alleged…
District Court Follows Arbuckle in Determining that CAFA’s “Local Controversy” Exception Does Not Apply Where Ambiguities in Class Definitions Exist
Municipal Water Authority of Westmoreland County v CNX Gas Co L L C , 2016 WL 5025752 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 20, 2016).
In this case the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (“District Court”) denied a plaintiff’s…