News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court Establishes New Standards: Removal Pleadings Now Less Burdensome For State Court Suits

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

Who Needs Proof? Not The Notice of Removal.

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

Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard Governing Removal of Class Action Cases to Federal Court

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

Removing a Barrier: The Supreme Court Holds That, Under CAFA, Notices of Removal Need Not Include Evidence Supporting the Amount...

On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens that a class action defendant need only allege the requisite amount of controversy “plausibly” in the notice of...more

No Proof Necessary: SCOTUS Rules Defendant’s Notice Of Removal Under CAFA Need Not Include Evidence of The Amount In Controversy

On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split in holding that a defendant need not supply evidence of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act...more

Supreme Court: Evidence of Amount in Controversy Not Required at Removal

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant removing a putative class action from state to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) need not submit evidence to...more

Supreme Court Confirms That A Notice Of Removal Requires Only A “Plausible Allegation” That The Amount In Controversy Has Been Met

The Supreme Court has held that a notice of removal requires only a “plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and confirmed that a notice of removal need not include evidence...more

The United States Supreme Court Holds That a Defendant’s Notice of Removal Need Only Include a “Plausible Allegation” That the...

On December 15, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC, et al. v. Owens.1 Writing for the 5 – 4 majority, Justice Ginsberg held that a defendant’s notice of removal pursuant to...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Fairness Act’s Removal Requirement: 'Liberal Rules' Do Not Require Evidence of Amount in...

Class action defendants need not include evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in...more

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Removing Class Actions to Federal Court

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719, a case involving the procedural requirements for removing a class action from state to federal court under the Class...more

U.S. Supreme Court Eases CAFA Removals

Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005, in response to perceived (in fact real) concerns regarding potential abuses of the class action process. Among CAFA’s important provisions was the right to remove...more

Supreme Court Opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719. Unsurprisingly, the Court held that a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act does not need to...more

Supreme Court Decides Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719, holding that a notice of removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and the Class...more

Ninth Circuit Offers Guidance to Defendants Seeking to Establish Removal Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court recently denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in Leite v. Crane Co., 49 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. ___ (2014) (No. 14-119), a case in which the Ninth Circuit established the...more

CAFA: Recent Developments on the Jurisdictional and Settlement Fronts

Since Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005, the nation’s class action litigation has increasingly migrated to the federal stage, with plaintiffs bringing more class actions directly to federal court...more

Courts Find Removal Is Not Permitted Under CAFA Where Plaintiff Did Not Plead A Class Action Under Rule 23 Or Comparable State...

District Courts continue to shape the boundaries of CAFA jurisdiction in suits that are not pleaded as class actions. For example, the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that defendants could not...more

A Class Action By Any Other Name Is Still A Class Action And Subject To CAFA

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand a collection against insurers brought on behalf of a certified class that had obtained a judgment in a separate action against...more

Reinsurance Arbitration Dispute Transferred To Venues In Which Arbitrations Were Pending

National Indemnity Company (NICO) sought an injunction in a Nebraska federal district court to prevent Transatlantic Reinsurance Company and its subsidiary (collectively, Transatlantic Re) from commencing arbitration against...more

Removal to Federal Court Based on Diversity Jurisdiction: How Long Do You Have?

Complaints filed in state court routinely allege only damages “in excess of $10,000.” If you’re a defendant considering removal to federal court based on diversity, such an allegation doesn’t meet the $75,000 amount in...more

Service Of Suit Endorsement Deemed To Waive Insurer’s Right To Remove Action To Federal Court

A Missouri federal district court remanded a coverage action brought against Illinois Union Insurance Company (“Illinois Union”) by its insured, holding that the Policy’s Service of Suit Endorsement (“Endorsement”) waived...more

Ninth Circuit “Chases” Away Another Option for Removing PAGA Actions to Federal Court

In yet another setback for employers seeking to remove California wage and hour cases to federal court, the Ninth Circuit held that the federal Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) provides federal courts with no basis to...more

The Labors of Hercules: Federal District Court in Washington Rejects Free Removability of General Maritime Law Claims Under 28...

As reported in two prior posts (The Removal of the Ancient Mariner - The Developing Jurisprudence Allowing Removal of General Maritime Law Claims under the Recent Amendments to 28 U.S.C. §1441(b) and The Removal of the...more

Despite Limited Jurisdiction, Texas Federal Court Keeps the Class in Class Action

The forum selection battle between insurance carriers and policyholders over whether litigation should be conducted in state or federal courts remains as contentious as ever. Litigants on both sides know forum shopping...more

Third Circuit Rules on Requirements of 'Home State' and 'Local Controversy' Exceptions to Federal Jurisdiction under the Class...

In a precedential opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last Friday made significant rulings on the "home state" and "local controversy" exceptions to federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action...more

Ninth Circuit Rules that Say-On-Pay Suit Belongs in State Court

In a recent ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that certain related shareholder derivative suits arising out of a say-on-pay decision involving Pico Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) were...more

32 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2