Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Co. v. CE Design, Ltd., 2017 WL 3165437 (7th Cir. July 26, 2017).
In this action, affirming the judgment of a district court, the Seventh Circuit found that although Rule 23 of the Federal rules of Civil
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 9
A Removing Defendant Can Use Over-inclusive Evidence to Establish the Amount in Controversy
Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC, 2017 WL 3197548 (4th Cir. July 28, 2017).
In this action, vacating a district court’s judgment, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court committed legal error by disregarding the defendant’s evidence of the amount…
A post-complaint settlement demand constitutes an “other paper” for purposes of CAFA removal.
By Dylan Reeves
Gibson v Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc, 2016 WL 3960875 (W.D. Ark. June 28, 2016).
In this action, the Magistrate Judge held that the plaintiffs’ settlement correspondence provided the defendant significant detail, which made the case removable.…
Once Citizenship Prerequisites Have Been Established, Courts Consider a Six-Factor Balancing Test when Determining Whether to Exercise the Discretionary-Remand Exception under CAFA
Speed v. JMA Energy Co., 2017 WL 2547240 (E.D. Ok. June 13, 2017).
Once the court had determined that a sufficient number of the plaintiffs and the primary defendants were citizens all citizens of the state in which the…
Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction Over All Claims if They Have Jurisdiction Over Some, and CAFA Doesn’t Support Claim-Splitting or Partial Remand of a Specific Remedy
Chuang v. Dr Pepper Snapple, 2017 WL 2463951 (C.D. Cal. Jun 7, 2017).
In denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a District Court in California found that the presence of at least some claims over which the district court…
Interest Payments Tied Solely To Delay In Paying Amounts In Controversy Insufficient To Establish CAFA Jurisdiction
Whisenant v. Sheridan Production Co., LLC, 627 F. App’x. 706 (10th Cir. 2015)
This decision concerns the reversal of a denial of a motion to remand. Plaintiff brought a putative class action in Oklahoma state court against a natural gas…
Failure to Allege Actual Damages Defeated a Putative Class Action against Wish.com
Max Gerboc v Context Logic, Inc., 2017 WL 3497405 (6th Cir. Aug. 16, 2017)
Wish.com is run by the defendant ContextLogic, Inc. (“ContextLogic”). The website works like a bazaar, where consumers can buy thousands of types of products, ranging from…
Mass Action Should Contain 100 Or More Actual Named Plaintiffs; Not Just 100 Or More Named Or Unnamed Real Parties In Interest
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v EZ-Flo International Inc., et al., Case No. 17-228 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2017).
In granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remand holding that the purported mass action was not brought by 100 or more plaintiffs,…
Federal Court Declines to Remand Action to State Court Based on Abstention After Determining it had Jurisdiction Over the Matter
Papurello v State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 144 F.Supp.3d 746 (W.D. Penn. Nov. 16, 2015).
In this action, the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (the “District Court”) denied the Plaintiffs Vincent and Linda Papurello’s (collectively,…
Post Filing Changes To The Nature Of Class Actions Filed In The Federal Courts Under CAFA Does Not Divest The Federal Courts Of Its Jurisdiction
Wright Transportation Inc v Pilot Corporation, 841 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2016).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) found that there was no distinction between the actions brought before a federal court…