Published By

Quiroz v. Mistras Group, Inc., No. CV 09-7146 PSG (SSX), 2010 WL 2079833 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2010).

While retaining the jurisdiction under CAFA after denial of class certification, the District Court in California observed that although the denial of class certification does not eliminate CAFA jurisdiction, the Court can still determine whether the case was properly removed under CAFA.

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 06:30 AM | Comments / Questions (0)

Allen v. Novaquest LLC, No. 8:10-CV-1119-T-24EAJ, 2010 WL 2330330 (M.D. Fla. Jun 09, 2010).

While this case is not a CAFA case, we bring it to you because it is an example (for good or bad) of a CAFA decision being applied to a non CAFA case.

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 06:30 AM | Comments / Questions (0)

Rhoades v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV00763GEBKJM, 2010 WL 2402847 (E.D. Cal. Jun 10, 2010).

A District Court in California remanded the action to the state court holding that the amount in controversy must be determined according to the plaintiffs’ pleading at the time of the petition for removal and not at the time of a subsequent amendment to the pleadings

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 06:30 AM | Comments / Questions (0)

Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Bezich, No. 10-8013, 2010 WL 2541203 (7th Cir. (Ind.) Jun 25, 2010).

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of remand to the state court holding that the plaintiff’s challenge to variable life insurance policy related to rights, duties and obligations concerning a security qualifying under the “securities exception” to CAFA. (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of the District Court decision in Bezich posted on August 11, 2010).

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 06:30 AM | Comments / Questions (0)

How often does this happen? The plaintiffs file a class action lawsuit. The defendant moves to dismiss. The district court rules. The aggrieved party appeals. The appellate court decides, sua sponte, that it didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction in the first place. Both sides file petitions for rehearing, and both make very similar arguments as to why the appellate court is wrong. Not your ordinary, everyday occurrence in the class action litigation world, but then, Cappuccitti isn’t your ordinary, everyday class action case.

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 10:13 AM | Comments / Questions (0)

Schiller v. David’s Bridal, Inc., No. 10-616 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2010)

Surprise, surprise. When there’s a dispute between a removing defendant and a potential CAFA plaintiff over the amount in controversy, you (defendant) can’t use the plaintiff’s refusal to stipulate that the amount in controversy is less than $5,000,000 as evidence that the amount in controversy will exceed $5,000,000, says the court in Schiller v. David’s Bridal, Inc.

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 05:30 AM | Comments / Questions (0)

Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund “A”, etc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al., Case No. 09-CV-2203 (D. Minn. July 19, 2010) 

Unless you are like the late Anna Nicole Smith or the late Michael Jackson, you probably get your prescription drugs from your local pharmacy. Doing so helped saved the plaintiffs in this case from litigating in federal court because CAFA’s local controversy exception applied. 

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 06:30 AM | Comments / Questions (0)

Here's a post from the Washington Legal Foundation blog regarding its recent filing of an amicus curiae brief in the Cappuccitti v. DirecTV litigation:

On August 18, 2010, WLF urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider a recent panel opinion that would severely undermine the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In a brief filed in Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., WLF argued that the panel’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction under CAFA was not only contrary to binding circuit precedent, but wholly subverts the plain text of CAFA, which looks only to the aggregated amount of the class’s claims and not at the individual amount of any particular claim. As detailed in WLF’s brief, the primary goal of CAFA was to expand federal jurisdiction over large, multi-state class actions that did not satisfy the traditional requirements for diversity jurisdiction. 

Copies of the amicus brief and of the press release are included.  Read the brief - it's very well done - enough so that  we'll do a complete post focusing on it in the near future.

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 04:50 PM | Comments / Questions (0)

Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 07-05923 WHA, 2010 WL 3198928 (M.D. Cal. August 10, 2010)

In keeping with our up-to-the minute, breaking news coverage of the Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc. Eleventh Circuit decision [Editor's Note:  for those readers who've recently living under a rock, here's the CAFA Law Blog's initial post on Cappuccitti], we wanted to jump right to what appears to be the first consideration of Cappuccitti by another court. 

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 06:55 AM | Comments / Questions (0)

Thomas v. Southern Pioneer Life Ins. Co., No. 3:09CV00120-WRW, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 4894695 (E.D. Ark., Dec 11, 2009).

A District Court in Arkansas remanded the action to state court for the defendant’s failure to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million holding that under the preponderance standard, the jurisdictional fact is not whether the damages are greater than the requisite amount, but whether a fact finder might legally conclude that they are.

Posted By McGlinchey Stafford at 06:30 AM | Comments / Questions (0)