Who are the decision makers at INTERPOL's CCF?
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 332: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
What if the CCF denies my request for the removal of my Red Notice?
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 163: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
CF on Cyber: An Update on the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA)
NGE On Demand: The (Dilatory) Forum Defendant Rule and Snap Removal with Nick Graber
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
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 Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., No. 15-1640, — F.3d —-, 2016 WL 1638045 (1st Cir. Apr. 26, 2016), the First Circuit analyzed the “reasonable probability” standard that a defendant must satisfy to support CAFA’s $5 million...more
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
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
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
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 Plaintiffs ...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
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
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
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) has found its way to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court several times in the last two years, as plaintiffs and defendants seek to define the parameters of the federal law...more
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
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719. This case involves whether a defendant must provide evidence with its notice of removal under the Class Action...more
Answering a question left undecided in other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit held in South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 14-10001 (Feb. 14, 2014) that a complaint seeking only declaratory relief “can be...more
In Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a class-action plaintiff may not avoid the effect of the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) by “stipulating” he will not seek damages in excess of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court resoundingly signaled an end to a form of statutory manipulation in the class action arena Tuesday. A unanimous Court held that named plaintiffs in class actions may not defeat federal removal...more