Monumental Win in Data Breach Class Action: A Case Study — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 6 – Mitigating Class Action Exposure
Mass Torts vs. Class Actions: A Tale of Two Strategies
Fierce Competition Podcast | Letter From London: The Rise of UK Class Actions and the Competition Appeal Tribunal
JONES DAY TALKS®: Collective Actions in Spain: A Look Around and the View Ahead
Entertainment Law Update Episode 160 – August/September 2023
JONES DAY TALKS®: Class Actions Worldview Guide: Part 1–The United States and European Union
Eleventh Circuit Grants en banc Review to Resolve Controversial TCPA Standing Ruling
2022 Year in Review and Look Ahead Crossover With FCRA Focus - The Consumer Finance Podcast
2022 Year in Review and Look Ahead Crossover With The Consumer Finance Podcast - FCRA Focus
Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Striking of Class Allegations
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
California Employment News: The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
What Is Mass Arbitration and How Should Companies Protect Themselves? - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Webinar Recording – Assessing the Surge in Wiretap Litigation
Fashion Counsel: Privacy in the Retail Fashion Industry
Recent Trends in Class-Action Consumer Finance Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
ESG and SEC Enforcement: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Vale S.A and its Corporate Takeaways
Current Trends in FCRA Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
This week, we take a look at two decisions tackling novel procedural issues. In the first, the Court strictly applied the amount-in-controversy requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act, faulting a defendant for not...more
The Eleventh Circuit recently examined the application of the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) to disputes over life insurance premiums and policies. It concluded that...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently underscored that removal practice under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) differs in some important respects from traditional removal practice in non-CAFA cases. It did so...more
Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) with the hope of preventing abuse in class action lawsuits. CAFA assigns jurisdiction to federal courts over class actions where: (i) the aggregate amount in...more
In Roppo v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, the Seventh Circuit held that even after a motion to remand CAFA removal jurisdiction can be sufficiently established by a defendant’s “good faith estimates” of the amount...more
A plaintiff will rarely be permitted to amend its class action complaint after removal to avoid federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). That is the takeaway from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’...more
Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005 to address a series of well-documented abuses of the class action process. Among the protections of the act were provisions enabling class action defendants to...more
When is a postage stamp like a lottery ticket? When purchased from Stamps.com according to one of its customers. Elizabeth Hammond of New Mexico filed a class action, seeking to recover the sum of $31.98 each on behalf of...more
In Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., No. 15-1640, — F.3d —-, 2016 WL 1638045 (1st Cir. Apr. 26, 2016), the First Circuit analyzed the “reasonable probability” standard that a defendant must satisfy to support CAFA’s $5 million...more
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) was intended to make it easier for defendants to remove class action lawsuits from state court to federal court. For example, CAFA introduced the concept of minimal as opposed to...more
The Southern District of California denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand a putative class action removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), where the plaintiff had alleged that the primary defendant’s product,...more
In December, we wrote about the recent Supreme Court decision in Owens v. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. In Owens, the Court held that class action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in support of their...more
Until a couple of years ago, plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking to keep their class actions in state court would frequently stipulate that they would not seek damages in excess of the $5 million CAFA threshold. This practice fell...more
The value of the claim at issue, not the value of the policy limit, is considered for purposes of determining the amount in controversy in an insurance coverage class action. That, the Middle District of Florida found, is the...more
In Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 14-35943 and 15-35113, 2015 WL 1447217 (Apr. 1, 2015 9th Cir.), a Ninth Circuit panel held that cases subject to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) become “removable” only when...more
A Ninth Circuit panel has held that a defendant may remove a case to federal court within 30 days after the CAFA ground for removal can first be ascertained, even where plaintiff’s complaint, filed years earlier, provided a...more
In This Issue: - Those Who Provide Investment Advice on Unsecured Securities Are Subject to Class Actions - A “Mass Action” Under the Class Action Fairness Act Requires at Least 100 Individual Plaintiffs ...more
Most cases involving the existence of removal jurisdiction under CAFA involve the $5 million amount in controversy. In a recent Third Circuit opinion, determining whether or not the putative class had the requisite 100...more
Through a pair of opinions issued the same day, the Ninth Circuit attempted to clarify the evidence required for a defendant to meet its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA’s $5 million threshold...more
The US Supreme Court recently held that under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a defendant need not provide proof of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal to federal court. Only a plausible allegation is...more
Just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the...more
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Dudley v. Eli Lilly and Co., 2014 WL 7360016 (11th Cir. Dec. 29, 2014), highlights the risk of waiving (or, at a minimum, postponing) an otherwise proper removal by not creating a proper...more
Days before the Supreme Court’s decision addressing the requirements for CAFA notices of removal in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Third Circuit addressed the evidentiary requirements for surviving a...more
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages and overtime satisfied CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement. ...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that a notice of removal from state court to federal court requires only pleading good faith allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds a jurisdictional threshold. The...more