News & Analysis as of

Class Action Fairness Act Federal Jurisdiction

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Left Coast Appeals

This Week At The Ninth: Removal Requirements

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

McGuireWoods LLP

Eighth Circuit Confirms That No Anti-Removal Presumption Applies under CAFA

McGuireWoods LLP on

The Eighth Circuit recently held that a district court “applied the wrong legal standard” when it remanded a case after removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). In Leflar v. Target Corp., the district court held...more

Kilpatrick

Fifth Circuit refuses to address non-CAFA grounds for remand where defendant petitioned to appeal remand decision under CAFA (28...

Kilpatrick on

Takeaway: The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) provides class action defendants with the means to secure federal jurisdiction over putative class actions filed in state court, as well as a mechanism to appeal decisions by...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Ninth Circuit Panel Holds Attorneys’ Fees May Be Included in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s Amount in Controversy when Available...

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Shoner v. Carrier Corporation, No. 20-56327 (9th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022), the Ninth Circuit recently held awardable attorneys’ fees can be counted toward the minimum amount in controversy required by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty...more

Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: We lack jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act to review sua sponte remand order.

On March 9, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for permission to appeal an order remanding a case removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). In its ruling denying the...more

Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.

Eighth Circuit First to Apply “Manifested Defect” Rule to Class Action Fairness Act

This month, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued what appears to be the first appellate opinion applying the “manifested defect” rule to the Class Action Fairness Act’s (“CAFA”) $5 million amount-in-controversy...more

Carlton Fields

A Dart Across the Bow

Carlton Fields on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Growing Consensus in the Courts of Appeals against Alternative-Citizenship Theory of Diversity under CAFA

If a putative class of plaintiffs, all citizens of State A, sues a corporate defendant, which the law considers to be a citizen of State A and State B, in state court, may the defendant remove the case to federal court under...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

A Corporation May Not Pick And Choose Its Citizenship To Create Diversity Under CAFA

The Sixth Circuit became the third court of appeals to reject the “alternative citizenship” theory of diversity under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In Roberts v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., a putative class of Tennessee...more

Benesch

Sixth Circuit Rules that the Class Action Fairness Act Means What it Says

Benesch on

A statute, distilled to its essence, is thought conveyed through words. And when those words are understandable and coherently arranged, there’s nothing for courts to do when adjudicating disputes involving them, other than...more

Burr & Forman

Judge Neil Gorsuch Lightens the Burden for Proving “Amount in Controversy” for Federal Jurisdiction

Burr & Forman on

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

BakerHostetler

A Look at Potential Supreme Court Nominees’ Class Action Decisions

BakerHostetler on

Tonight, President Donald Trump is expected to nominate one of three federal appellate judges to the Supreme Court: Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit or Judge Thomas Hardiman...more

Carlton Fields

Illinois District Court Holds CAFA and Diversity Both Provide Federal Jurisdiction Over Class Actions

Carlton Fields on

The Southern District of Illinois recently confirmed that traditional diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Act Fairness Act (CAFA) provide two separate means of obtaining federal jurisdiction over class...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

Pazol v. Tough Mudder, Inc.: Muddying the waters on proof of jurisdictional facts under CAFA?

Pierce Atwood LLP on

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

K&L Gates LLP

Buy One, Get One Free: Appellate Court Strikes Deal to Permit Defendant’s Second Attempt at Removing Class Action Beyond Initial...

K&L Gates LLP on

Addressing an issue of first impression, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Graiser v. Visionworks of America, Inc., recently upheld a defendant’s second attempt at removing a class action to federal court under the Class...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

The Class Action Chronicle - Fall 2015

This is the ninth edition of The Class Action Chronicle, a quarterly publication that provides an analysis of recent class action trends, along with a summary of class certification and Class Action Fairness Act rulings...more

Cozen O'Connor

When Plaintiffs Fail to Plead the “Local Controversy” Exception to CAFA

Cozen O'Connor on

A narrow exception to CAFA’s broad removal provisions is the “local controversy” exception, which prohibits removal in certain cases where the dispute is deemed sufficiently contained within the forum state that the interests...more

Balch & Bingham LLP

Eleventh Circuit Throws Open The Door To State-Law Class Actions In Federal Court

Balch & Bingham LLP on

In a first-of-its-kind opinion that could open the class action flood gates, the Eleventh Circuit has held that state consumer fraud class actions may proceed in federal court even if the state consumer fraud statute...more

Cozen O'Connor

CAFA Removal: A Second Bite at the Apple?

Cozen O'Connor on

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

Pierce Atwood LLP

To Remove or Not To Remove?

Pierce Atwood LLP on

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

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

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

Carlton Fields

Eleventh Circuit Affirms CAFA-Based Remand Order

Carlton Fields on

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

Carlton Fields

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

Carlton Fields on

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

Polsinelli

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

Polsinelli on

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

Burr & Forman

Who Needs Proof? Not The Notice of Removal.

Burr & Forman on

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

41 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide