Removal

News & Analysis as of

Expansion of Class Allows Second Removal Under Class Action Fairness Act, According to Ninth Circuit

It is important to remember that when a putative class action is remanded to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), that may not be the end of the jurisdictional battle. ...more

Creative Construction: The Ninth Circuit Relaxes Removal Statute’s Timeliness Test in Class Action Fairness Act Cases

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

Ninth Circuit Holds Defendant Can Remove Within 30-Days After CAFA Grounds Are Ascertained, Even Where Complaint Provided Basis...

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

Ninth Circuit Holds That State Court’s Class Certification Order Creates New Occasion for CAFA Removal

The Ninth Circuit held that a state court’s certification order, under which CAFA’s amount in controversy would be met, created a new basis for defendant to remove the case to federal court. The plaintiff had filed a putative...more

“Common” Defense No Bar to Removal in Preemption Case

We’re not law professors. We don’t typically read opinions with an eye to where they fit (or don’t) in some grand jurisprudential scheme. We’re litigators, so we read opinions with an eye to whether they can help our...more

Class Certification Provides a Second Bite at the Proverbial Apple for Removing Case to Federal Court

In Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Filed April 1, 2015, No. 15-55176) the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, held the certification of a class triggers a new opportunity for a defendant to remove the matter to...more

Drawing the line on arbitrator impartiality

In a rare decision under s24 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the English court has recently taken the unusual step of removing an arbitrator due to concerns about his impartiality and conduct. While the view of the English...more

To Remove or Not to Remove in Massachusetts?

I frequently am asked whether a company sued in Massachusetts state court would be better off in federal court. Despite the common perception that defendants in any state are always better off in federal court, there has...more

Do Medical Records Support Removal And Do Unripe Claims Get Dismissed

In Alilin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 6:14-cv-1183-Orl-41DAB (D. for M.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2015), Judge Carlos Mendoza denied Alilin's challenge to the amount in controversy prong of State Farm's removal to federal...more

To Remove or Not To Remove?

When the Class Action Fairness Act was passed ten years ago, many businesses breathed a collective sigh of relief. No longer would the plaintiffs' bar be able to keep their cases in certain magnet jurisdictions (a/k/a...more

High Court Finds Plausible Showing of Amount in Controversy Sufficient to Remove Action

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

Don’t Mess With Texas Adjusters In Hail Damage Claims

Texas hail claim policyholder lawyers, like many plaintiffs’ lawyers, clearly prefer to be in state court rather than federal court. To accomplish this and prevent the defendant insurer from properly removing the lawsuit to...more

BakerHostetler 2014 Year-End Review of Class Actions (and what to expect in 2015)

We are pleased to share with you the BakerHostetler 2014 Year-End Review of Class Actions, which offers a summary of some of the key developments in class action litigation during the past year. Class action litigation...more

2014 SCOTUS Term: Important Developments in the Class-Action Arena

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...more

Amber Coyle v. Michael O’Rourke - USDC, C.D. Cal., January 5, 2015

In Depth - Plaintiff models sue defendants in California state court for statutory invasion of privacy and common law misappropriation, and, following removal, district court remands because subject matter of state law...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Removal Pleading Standard

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

Eleventh Circuit Affirms CAFA-Based Remand Order

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

Making a Record in Support of CAFA Removal to Federal Court

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

Third Circuit Weighs In On Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Cases Removed Under CAFA

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 Ten Most Significant Class Action Cases of 2014

Year-end lists are funny things. They take a sort-of arbitrary starting and stopping point, and then they cram a bunch of prejudices into a (usually) arbitrary number of items. And then people take them kind of seriously....more

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

Supreme Court Update: Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. V. Owens (13-719) And Heien V. North Carolina (13-604)

Greetings, Court fans Long before he became Chief, John Roberts quipped that "[o]nly Supreme Court justices and schoolchildren are expected to and do take the entire summer off." Right now, the Justices are in the midst...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

119 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.
×