Supreme Court Closes CAFA Loophole in Standard Fire v. Knowles
The Texas Business Court recently released an opinion in Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas, LLC,[1] that provides important guidance on how it interprets its subject matter jurisdiction, particularly...more
In the final quarter of 2025, the Texas Business Court closed its first calendar year of operation with a full slate of notable opinions. The Business Court continued to release opinions clarifying its jurisdiction, including...more
The Texas Business Court has made it clear that in order to satisfy its amount in controversy jurisdictional threshold when only unpaid royalties are sought under a breach of contract claim, the amount in...more
The Texas Business Court recently reaffirmed that pleading damages “in an amount of not less than” the applicable, required amount in controversy ($5 million or $10 million) without including specific factual allegations...more
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear certain types of cases. One of the bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction, which allows parties from different...more
As a part of Vinson & Elkins’ Texas Business Court Quarterly Update, the following update summarizes the Texas Business Court opinions—categorized by primary issue—that have been released since September 1, 2024 through the...more
Plaintiff’s counsel often employ a range of strategic tactics to defeat diversity jurisdiction because they view federal court as an unfavorable forum. One such tactic is to challenge the amount in controversy—a key...more
Jason Brand made a claim for disability benefits under his disability policy with Principal Life Insurance Company on the basis that he was totally disabled by extreme anxiety that began in July 2014 after a warrant was...more
A recent Ninth Circuit decision highlights the importance of the defendant clearly pleading the basis for alleging the amount in controversy in a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In this case,...more
This week, the Court holds that it may sua sponte question the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) in a removed case where a defendant’s notice of removal alleged the...more
Generally, a case is not removable to federal court “more than one year after commencement of [an] action.” However, a defendant may remove a case to federal court after the one-year deadline if it can demonstrate the...more
This week, we take a look at two Ninth Circuit decisions tracing the limits of federal courts’ jurisdiction. In the first, the Court addressed the Article III requirements that public interest organizations must satisfy in...more
This week, we look at one decision navigating the complicated jurisprudence governing review of remand orders (which one might think would be unreviewable), and another addressing the available penalties when taxpayers fail...more
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
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed a case involving a plaintiff’s claim of negligence, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a federal age discrimination...more
Can an insured’s post-suit Civil Remedy Notice demanding over $75,000 satisfy the amount-in-controversy diversity jurisdiction requirement and trigger the thirty-day removal period for an insurer? It depends....more
In Parrott v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128827 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017), a U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that parties cannot include future disability benefits in the...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
Florida’s trial court system is divided into two tiers, the county courts and the circuit courts. For most civil cases, the dividing line between county and circuit court is the amount in controversy, with a $15,000 limit for...more
Presented with an argument that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the Southern District of New York clarified the diversity, amount in controversy, and “place of sitting” requirements under Section 7 of the FAA –...more
Probably every practitioner has faced the situation. The goal is to remove the case to the United States District Court. There is complete diversity, but the amount in controversy is ambiguous; plaintiff seeks actual and...more
This month’s key California employment law cases are two decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2018) - Summary: Amount in controversy for federal...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
The Holding - In Hoarau v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 2017 WL 3328078 (D.Ariz. August 4, 2017), the Arizona District Court denied an insured's Motion to Remand in an insurance bad faith, punitive damages, and declaratory...more