Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 332: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 163: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
NGE On Demand: The (Dilatory) Forum Defendant Rule and Snap Removal with Nick Graber
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 292: Listen and Learn -- The Erie Doctrine (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 126: Listen and Learn -- The Erie Doctrine
Welcome to the inaugural edition of Classified Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions from Federal Appellate Courts. The Roundup normally will arrive in your inbox the first week of each month and will cover the...more
The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), was enacted to make federal courts the primary venue for class action litigation. It did so by modifying the usual jurisdictional requirements of the diversity jurisdiction statute...more
SCOTUS Reviews "Blissful Ignorance" as Statute of Limitations Defense - On December 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 139 S. Ct. 2692 (2019). The question...more
In most countries, it is uncontroversial that a court sitting at the situs of an arbitration has jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition to confirm or vacate or modify an award issued in that arbitration. In the United States...more
On March 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) ruled that the citizenship of a Real Estate Investment Entity (“REIT”), for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, is based on the citizenship of its...more
In Americold Realty Tr. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016), the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a Maryland real estate investment trust (formed pursuant...more
IRS Publishes Proposed section 305(c) Regulations - On April 12th, the IRS published proposed regulations under Section 305(c) that address the treatment of deemed dividends to holders of stock and rights to acquire...more
The Supreme Court’s most recent citizenship opinion, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., could make removing or keeping a case in federal court based on diversity more difficult for a statutory trust with a...more
Article III of the U.S. Constitution extends the jurisdiction of federal courts to “[c]ontroversies … between Citizens of different States.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “This rule is easy enough to apply to humans, but...more
On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. that unincorporated entities organized as “real estate investment trusts” (REITs) under Maryland law are citizens of every...more
In a unanimous March 7, 2016 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., et al., , the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an oft-confused holding relating to diversity jurisdiction: the...more
In Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. (No. 14-1382, decided 3/7/16), the Supreme Court of the United States applied its “oft-repeated rule” regarding the citizenship of unincorporated entities to a Maryland...more
Regulatory Developments - CFPB Now Accepting Complaints on Online Marketplace Lenders - On March 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced two initiatives: it will now accept complaints from...more
Business trusts, statutory trusts and non-corporate real-estate investment trusts now face a significant jurisdictional barrier that will reduce their access to the federal courts, following a March 7 ruling by the U.S....more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases today - Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382: Plaintiff corporations, including respondent ConAgra Foods, Inc., brought suit...more
On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382, holding that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a “real estate investment trust” established...more
Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power of the federal courts may extend to, among other things, controversies between citizens of different states. When a party is a trust, in what state is...more
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) represented a major overhaul of class action lawsuits and made the federal courts available for cases not involving a question of federal law. Among the effects, CAFA greatly...more
In a decision that may make it somewhat easier for defendants to remove putative class actions from state to federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants in such cases do not need to offer evidence in their...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
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
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
In a previous blog, we explained that the Supreme Court was considering whether a defendant merely has to allege jurisdictional facts or provide evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case....more
The US Supreme Court ruled last Monday that class action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in support of their attempts to remove a case from state to federal court. Rather, they need only include in their...more