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
In an apparent case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the fact that the district court may be foreclosed by governmental immunity from ordering relief prevents the federal court...more
Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 2020 WL 5361459 (9th Cir. 2020) - Clayton Salter, a truck driver, filed this putative class action against his employer, Quality Carriers and Quality Distribution, alleging that he and...more
Resolving an issue of first impression before it, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) “may not be used to evade the specific numerosity requirement”...more
Massachusetts state and federal courts issued a number of important product liability decisions in 2019. The Product Liability practice group at Nutter recently reviewed these cases. Highlighted below are some of the key...more
A plaintiff filed a class-action complaint in state court alleging a potential liability of $2.9 million to the class, plus fees and punitive damages. The defendant conducted its own calculation and determined that the amount...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff class action firm alleging that objectors to class action settlements violated both RICO and Illinois state law by filing frivolous objections in order to seek payouts,...more
In Roppo v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, the Seventh Circuit held that even after a motion to remand CAFA removal jurisdiction can be sufficiently established by a defendant’s “good faith estimates” of the amount...more
Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005 to address a series of well-documented abuses of the class action process. Among the protections of the act were provisions enabling class action defendants to...more
In a case of first impression for the Court, the Eleventh Circuit recently addressed whether federal district courts retain original subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims included in a class action filed pursuant...more
REAL PROPERTY UPDATE - Foreclosure/Constitutional Challenge: record title owner’s argument that Florida Statutes section 702.035, governing “Legal notice concerning foreclosure proceedings,” is an unconstitutional...more
On November 16, 2016, the Sixth Circuit held that a state law professional negligence class action against civil engineering companies arising out of the Flint, Michigan water crisis must be litigated in Michigan state court....more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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