The CAFA Law Blog previously analyzed the Sixth Circuit opinion in Mason, et al., v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newman (Nov. 16, 2016) surrounding the Flint, Michigan water treatment plant. See the CAFA Law Blog analysis here. In that opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order remanding the case based on CAFA’s local controversy exception. On June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. This particular class action, alleging the engineering firm didn’t protect Flint, Michigan residents from lead contamination, will remain in state court.
Grosshart v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2016 WL 5661526 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2016).
In an action brought against an insurance company and its claims representatives, the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri (the “District Court”) found the claims representatives were not significant defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act’s (“CAFA”) local controversy exception because each claim representative would have had contact with only a few of the class members. Accordingly, the District Court retained jurisdiction over the action, and it denied Plaintiff’s remand motion.
Broadway Grill Inc v Visa Inc., 2016 WL 5390415 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016).
Plaintiff Broadway Grill, Inc. (“Broadway”) brought an action against defendants Visa Inc., Visa International Service Association, and Visa U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, “Visa”), based on alleged antitrust violations in setting of interchange fees that were imposed on merchants who accepted Visa-branded credit cards.
Municipal Water Authority of Westmoreland County v CNX Gas Co L L C , 2016 WL 5025752 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 20, 2016).
In this case the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (“District Court”) denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand determining that the plaintiff failed to establish the local controversy exception CAFA.
In an action removed under CAFA, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, but reversed the District Court’s determination of attorneys’ fee and remanded the action to consider whether the fee should be awarded on the trebled damages.
In this case, the plaintiffs, newspaper subscribers, brought a putative class action in the state court alleging that the defendant corporation owns several newspapers throughout California involved in false and misleading billing practices in connection with newspaper subscriptions.
Brown v Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Civ. Action No. 1:16-cv-243, 2016 WL 6996136 (D.N.H. Nov. 30, 2016).
In addressing whether the “local controversy” exception to CAFA jurisdiction was met, a federal district court in New Hampshire, following the precedent of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, determined that the party asserting that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies must prove it under a preponderance of the evidence standard. In Brown v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the district court determined that the local controversy exception did not apply because different plaintiffs had filed lawsuits in other states “asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants,” even though it affected different plaintiffs in different states because the allegations arose from the same alleged conduct of the defendant.
Vilitchai v Ametek Programmable Power Inc., 2017 WL 875595 (S.D. Cal. March 6, 2017).
A plaintiff brought a putative class action in California state court alleging the defendants violated various wage and overtime requirements set forth in the California Business and Professions Code. One defendant, Aerotek, Inc. (“Aerotek”), a staffing agency, removed the case to federal court under CAFA. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing his claims did not meet CAFA’s jurisdictional minimum of $5,000,000. Continue Reading
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Hormel Foods Corporation, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2017 WL 1283411 (D.D.C. Apr. 5, 2017).
In this action, in granting the plaintiff’s motion to remand, the U.S. District Court for the District Columbia found that because the plaintiff did not bring the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23—but instead under a D.C. Code section that permits a non-profit organization to sue on behalf of general public challenging any trade practice, which is a “separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action”—CAFA does not apply.
Michelle Gyorke-Takatri v Nestle USA Inc., 2016 WL 5514756 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016)
A district court in California determined that the general rule of requiring a “relevant change of circumstances” for a successive removal attempt applies to successive removal of CAFA cases. Continue Reading