Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Articles

The latest CAFA developments and trends, including news, key cases, and strategies.

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try Another CAFA Exception

December 27, 2018 by Laura Wall and Kristin Ann Shepard

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Panel recently affirmed a district court order remanding a putative class action to state court after the defendants' initial removal under CAFA. The case involved claims on behalf of users of the Golden Gate Bridge against three defendants for violations of California's privacy statutes concerning the collection and sharing of personally identifiable information. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that after collecting information of ... Keep Reading »

Don’t Count Your Chickens – Or State Citizens for CAFA Exceptions – Before They Hatch

November 5, 2018 by Thaddeus Ewald and D. Matthew Allen

The Ninth Circuit vacated a remand order implicating the local and home-state controversy exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction in a putative class action by former California resident employees of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) for state wage-and-hour law violations. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that “greater than two-thirds of proposed class members” were residents of California to invoke the exceptions. Originally filed in ... Keep Reading »

Too Fast and Furious: Ninth Circuit Unwinds Hyundai and Kia Nationwide Class Action Settlement

February 14, 2018 by Ricardo Rozen and Gary M. Pappas

In a split panel, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s certification of a nationwide class action settlement because the lower court failed to conduct a sufficient predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3). In 2012 Hyundai and Kia were accused of overstating their fuel efficiency estimates in advertisements and car window stickers for certain of their vehicles. A flurry of putative class action litigation ensued across the country, and the MDL ... Keep Reading »

State of Louisiana, as Absent Class Member, Escapes CAFA Settlement Trap

January 10, 2018 by Ricardo Rozen and Gary M. Pappas

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Pennsylvania district court decision holding the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prevented a private party from enjoining the state of Louisiana from bringing claims identical to those previously thought released in a class action settlement. As our prior post detailed, in 2013 pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) settled a class action brought against it by indirect purchasers of the allergy ... Keep Reading »

Consolidated Cholesterol Drug Cases Lack Critical Mass for CAFA Jurisdiction

June 9, 2017 by Thaddeus Ewald and Kristin Ann Shepard

The Central District of California district court recently weighed in on the limits of mass action jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The matter began as various individual state court actions alleging that a cholesterol medication caused women taking the drug to suffer from Type II diabetes; after the state court granted a request for “coordination” of the cases, defendant pharmaceutical company removed the cases to federal court based on CAFA’s ... Keep Reading »

Attempting to Counter a CAFA Loophole

May 3, 2017 by Joseph H. Lang, Jr. and D. Matthew Allen

Home Depot filed a certiorari petition in the United States Supreme Court aimed at closing an emerging loophole in CAFA jurisprudence in various circuits. According to the petition, some circuits have “narrowly construed CAFA’s removal statute to forbid removal by a newly-added counterclaim defendant in an otherwise removable class action.” This litigation began as a collection dispute brought by the original plaintiff against certain customers, the original ... Keep Reading »

Saved By The Bellwether Trial in the Ninth Circuit

April 24, 2017 by Ricardo Rozen and Gary M. Pappas

Removal under the “mass action” provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) is appropriate when 100 or more plaintiffs take the affirmative step of proposing to try their claims jointly and the claims involve common issues of law or fact. The Ninth Circuit recently examined whether plaintiffs’ request for a bellwether trial in eight separate cases involving the same allegedly defective medical devices amounted to a proposal to have claims tried jointly thereby ... Keep Reading »

Eleventh Circuit Finds Dual Citizenship Defeats CAFA Diversity

April 13, 2017 by Christine A. Stoddard and Kristin Ann Shepard

The Eleventh Circuit recently denied a petition to appeal an order remanding a putative class action to state court, finding the defendant corporations’ dual citizenship defeated minimal diversity under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Georgia state court against two insurance companies, alleging a variety of state law claims and limiting the class to include only Georgia citizens. The defendant companies removed under CAFA. Both were ... Keep Reading »

Judge Gorsuch on Class Actions

February 6, 2017 by Joseph H. Lang, Jr. and D. Matthew Allen

On January 31, President Trump announced that Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals would be nominated for the United States Supreme Court. We took a look at those opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit that primarily addressed class action issues. These decisions confront a range of problems that arise in class action litigation. They also reveal his accessible, sometimes breezy, sometimes pointed, writing style. Four such decisions ... Keep Reading »

No, Yes, or Back to State Court? Three Circuits Address Standing in Statutory “No Injury” Class Actions

January 25, 2017 by Kristin Ann Shepard and D. Matthew Allen

In Spokeo, the Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question of whether a plaintiff suing for violation of a federal statute satisfied Article III’s standing requirement by alleging no concrete injury as a result of that violation. Instead, the Court vacated and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address whether the plaintiff satisfied the “concreteness” requirement for Article III standing. On January 20, the Seventh and Third Circuits weighed in ... Keep Reading »

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
  • Next Page »

Get Weekly Updates!

2018 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

Start Reading
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

  • Illinois Supreme Court Finds No Actual Harm Needed to Sue Under State’s Biometric Privacy Statute
  • No Standing, No Settlement?
  • Ninth Circuit Says Local Rule 90-Day Deadline to File Class Certification Motion Incompatible With Federal Rule 23

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

Classified Logo
© 2014–2019 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.