Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Court Denies Remand Holding CAFA’s Amount In Controversy Requirement Was Met

by Carlton Fields

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied plaintiff’s renewed motion to remand, holding that defendants had demonstrated that it was plausible that CAFA’s amount in controversy requirement had been exceeded and plaintiff had failed to make an irrevocable commitment to obtain less than $5,000,000 in damages.  The district court initially granted plaintiff’s motion to remand but, as we previously reported, the Seventh Circuit reversed.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Act by improperly filing and threatening to file lawsuits against plaintiff and the putative class without properly being registered as a debt collector in Illinois.  The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the class could be awarded only $355,407.62 in compensatory damages because plaintiff had only submitted calculations including the amounts actually recovered by defendants through allegedly improper judgments.  Citing an affidavit submitted by counsel for one of the defendants, the court found that an additional $1.2 million in compensatory damages had to be factored into the amount in controversy calculation because plaintiff’s potential recovery also included improperly entered judgments not yet recovered.  Adding these potential damages, the amount of potential attorney’s fees, and the maximum permissible amount of punitive damages (at a 9:1 ratio), the court found that the amount in controversy could plausibly well exceed the required $5,000,000 and denied plaintiff’s renewed motion to remand.

Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings, LLC, No. 13-7468, slip op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Court Denies Certification Citing Putative Class Representative’s Criminal History

Next Article »

Third Circuit Denies Employees’ Petition For Rehearing In Class Arbitration Case

About Carlton Fields

Related Articles

  1. District Court for the District of Columbia Finds CAFA Jurisdiction Exists; Denies Remand For Lack of Local Controversy
  2. GCs facing more bet-the-company and higher exposure class actions
  3. 2016 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey Reveals Important Trends in Class Action Management

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

2025 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • Supreme Court Refuses to Decide Whether Damages Class Containing Both Injured and Uninjured Members Can Be Certified
  • Royal Canin v. Wullschleger: A Primer on Jurisdiction
  • Classified (Bi-)Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions From Federal Appellate Courts July and August 2024

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified®: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Copyright © 2025 · Carlton Fields · All Rights Reserved