Through a pair of opinions issued the same day, the Ninth Circuit attempted to clarify the evidence required for a defendant to meet its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA’s $5 million threshold when a plaintiff moves to remand. In the first opinion, Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., the plaintiff filed suit in state court seeking to represent a class of employees allegedly injured by the defendant’s "pattern and practice of failing to pay ... Keep Reading »
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Articles
The latest CAFA developments and trends, including news, key cases, and strategies.
Eleventh Circuit Affirms CAFA-Based Remand Order
Just two weeks after the Supreme Court's decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold for a CAFA removal. Plaintiff, a former Lilly employee, alleged that Lilly failed to make certain incentive payments due her and other similarly situated individuals who had ... Keep Reading »
Third Circuit Weighs In On Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Cases Removed Under CAFA
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 motion to remand a case removed under CAFA for failure to satisfy CAFA’s numerosity and amount in controversy requirements. Plaintiff in the case sought to represent a class of “hundreds” of individuals injured in common carrier motor vehicle ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Finds that CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement was Satisfied; Denies Motion to Remand
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages and overtime satisfied CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement. Plaintiff’s class action complaint alleged that Finish Line violated the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code by, among other things, failing to pay its hourly employees regular and overtime wages on a “regular and consistent basis.” Thus, ... Keep Reading »
Supreme Court Confirms That A Notice Of Removal Requires Only A “Plausible Allegation” That The Amount In Controversy Has Been Met
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 establishing the amount in controversy. In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the plaintiff alleged that defendants, Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC, underpaid royalties owed to putative class members and ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Holds California Can’t Double-Dip By Seeking Restitution for Citizens Bound By Class Settlement
In the wake of a nationwide class action settlement of litigation against a manufacturer of a test claimed to accurately predict the gender of a fetus, the State of California (“State”) brought an enforcement action against the manufacturer for restitution for California citizens who purchased the test, as well as for civil penalties and injunctive relief. The defendant manufacturer removed to federal court and sought an injunction under the Anti-Injunction Act, arguing ... Keep Reading »
Ninth and Tenth Circuits Address Removal Under CAFA’s “Mass Action” and “State Action” Provisions
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 relief claims of 100 or more persons are “proposed to be tried jointly.” Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 404.1, plaintiffs moved for coordination of their cases alleging injuries relating to ingestion of a drug ingredient. Defendants ... Keep Reading »
Court Denies Motion to Remand, Rejecting Application of Home State and Local Controversy Exceptions to CAFA
The plaintiff filed a putative class action in Pennsylvania state court against two Pennsylvania defendants and one Virginia defendant, claiming that the defendants preyed on non-English speakers, illegally coercing them to enter into franchise agreements that circumvented the obligations of what were properly classified as employment relationships. The defendants removed under CAFA, and the plaintiff sought remand pursuant to CAFA’s home-state and local-controversy ... Keep Reading »
First Circuit Adopts Bright-Line Rule On CAFA Removal Trigger And Broadly Defines Other Paper
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the thirty-day time period for removal under CAFA is triggered when the plaintiffs’ complaint or plaintiffs’ subsequent other papers provide defendants with sufficient information to easily determine that the matter is removable, even if based on information provided by or previously available to defendants, and that “other paper” is defined broadly to include correspondence from the plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel ... Keep Reading »
Seventh Circuit Addresses Burden of Proof Under CAFA’s Home State Exception, Affirms Denial of Remand and Award of Costs to Defendant Insurer, and Admonishes Class Counsel
The Seventh Circuit recently addressed the applicability of the home state exception under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). The case arose from health insurer Right Choice Insurance Company’s withdrawal from the Illinois market and cancellation of its insurance policies. Former policyholders filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging that cancellation of their policies violated ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next Page »