News & Analysis as of

Removal Class Action Federal Jurisdiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

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

K&L Gates LLP

Removing a Barrier: The Supreme Court Holds That, Under CAFA, Notices of Removal Need Not Include Evidence Supporting the Amount...

K&L Gates LLP on

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

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Confirms That A Notice Of Removal Requires Only A “Plausible Allegation” That The Amount In Controversy Has Been Met

Carlton Fields on

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

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

Supreme Court: Companies Fighting State Class Actions Can Remove to Federal Court Without Evidence of Damages

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Removing Class Actions to Federal Court

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

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

SCOTUS Rules CAFA Removal Notices Need Contain Only a Plausible Allegation That Amount in Controversy is Satisfied

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a critical issue regarding Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) removals. Specifically, the Supreme Court settled a controversy surrounding what...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Supreme Court Simplifies Removal from State Courts

Yesterday, the Supreme Court relieved decades of uncertainty concerning the filing requirements for removal of cases to federal court from state court by holding that a defendant is required only to file “a short and plain...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"Supreme Court Rules No Evidence Required to Remove Cases to Federal Court, Rejects Presumption Against Federal Jurisdiction in...

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed an important question governing the procedure for removing cases to federal court — whether a defendant must attach evidence in support of key jurisdictional facts, such as the...more

Carlton Fields

Ninth and Tenth Circuits Address Removal Under CAFA's "Mass Action" and "State Action" Provisions

Carlton Fields on

In Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, the Ninth Circuit – on rehearing en banc –examined the applicability of the “mass action” provision of CAFA, which provides federal jurisdiction for any civil action in which monetary...more

BakerHostetler

Ninth Circuit “Chases” Away Another Option for Removing PAGA Actions to Federal Court

BakerHostetler on

In yet another setback for employers seeking to remove California wage and hour cases to federal court, the Ninth Circuit held that the federal Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) provides federal courts with no basis to...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Third Circuit Rules on Requirements of 'Home State' and 'Local Controversy' Exceptions to Federal Jurisdiction under the Class...

Ballard Spahr LLP on

In a precedential opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last Friday made significant rulings on the "home state" and "local controversy" exceptions to federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action...more

Carlton Fields

MDL Panel Weighs In On CAFA’s “Mass Action” Provision

Carlton Fields on

In re : Darvocet, Darvon and Propoxyphere Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2226, 2013 WL 1635469 (April 17, 2013), the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered a motion to transfer three action. ...more

Littler

The Federal Enclave Doctrine: A Potentially Powerful Defense to State Employment Laws

Littler on

The U.S. Constitution provides that the federal government has exclusive legislative rights over certain federal territories – such as military bases, courthouses, and other official properties – if a state consents to the...more

24 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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