Seventh Circuit Reverses Remand Order Based On Supreme Court’s Knowles Decision


In what may become a more common trend in CAFA litigation based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1345 (2013), the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s order remanding the case back to state court.

The district court had determined that the defendant failed to show that the amount in controversy in the litigation exceeded $5 million, as required by the Class Action Fairness Act.  The district court’s decision was apparently based in part on the statement in the Complaint that Plaintiffs’ damages would not exceed $3.5 million.  However, in Knowles, the Court held that a stipulation by the named plaintiff in his complaint—even though accompanied by an affidavit signed by him before the class is certified—does not limit the amount of potential damages that the class would be able to recover and so does not affect removability under CAFA.

Writing for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Posner first remarked that neither party even cited Knowles.  Judge Posner then expressed his surprise that the Knowles Court did not discuss whether a substantive damages limitation under state law would affect CAFA removability.  Likewise, Judge Posner observed that the Knowles Court failed to discuss the tradeoff between class counsel’s giving up a part of the class damages claim and, by doing so, being able to litigate in a forum believed to be more favorable to the class.

In the end, Judge Posner recognized that the court was bound by Knowles and reversed the remand order.  Before doing so, however, Judge Posner corrected the district court’s inaccurate determination that the Rooker–Feldman rule precluded most of the claims of the class and further corrected the district court’s “mistaken” statement that “there is a strong presumption in favor of remand” when a case has been removed under the CAFA.

Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings, LLC, No. 14–8006 (7th Cir. Apr. 9, 2014)

For an additional application of Knowlessee our discussion of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rea v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. 14-55008 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2014).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Carlton Fields | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Carlton Fields on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.