Sovanarra Nop v. American Water Resources, Inc., 2016 WL 4890412 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2016).
A district court in New Jersey retained jurisdiction over an action and rejected the plaintiff’s argument to consider the current year’s voter list (not the year in which the action was filed) for purposes of establishing citizenship.
Lavelle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2017 WL 706157 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2017)
In denying a motion to remand, the District of Columbia found that a defendant is not obligated to present evidence regarding punitive damages in its notice of removal, particularly when the defendant relies on the plaintiff’s calculation for such claims. The Court further held that declarations of an insurer’s claims representative and economist were sufficiently reliable to satisfy the insurer’s burden of demonstrating the size of a putative class of insureds to determine the amount in controversy. Continue Reading
Life of the South Insurance Company v. Carzell, 2017 WL 1174083 (11th Cir. March 29, 2017).
Recently, the Eleventh Circuit denied two corporate defendants’ petition to appeal because the companies’ dual citizenship was an insufficient basis to create federal diversity jurisdiction under CAFA when they shared a state of citizenship with all of the plaintiffs.
Seasons Homeowners Association Inc v Richmond Homes of Nevada Inc., 2016 WL 7155746 (D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2016).
In this construction defect dispute, a District Court in Nevada denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand because the the plaintiff’s supporting documents pertained to a separate case and, therefore, could not serve as “other paper” to put the defendants on notice of the amount in controversy in the instant case.
Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., 2016 WL 4886934 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2016).
A district court in California ordered the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery to determine if two-thirds of the class members (consisting of members from the states of California and Washington) were from the state of California, so it could ascertain if CAFA’s local controversy exception applied to this action.
The plaintiff, Tiffany Brinkley, filed this action in the Superior Court of the California for the County of San Diego, asserting causes of action against the defendant Monetary Financial Services, Inc., for violations of California Penal Code §§ 630, et. seq., Washington Rev. Code §§ 9.73, et. seq., and California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et. seq., based on the defendant’s alleged unlawful recording and/or monitoring of telephone calls. The plaintiff sought, among other things, to certify a putative class including all persons who, while physically located or residing in California and Washington, made or received one or more telephone calls with the defendant in the class period and did not receive notice at the beginning of the call that their conversation may be recorded or monitored.
Melissa Ramirez, et. al. v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, 852 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2017).
In this case, the Third Circuit found that the language the plaintiffs held out as disclaiming their intent to seek a joint trial was not sufficiently definite to prevent removal as a mass action under CAFA. Accordingly, it reversed the U.S. District Court’s order, which had remanding the action to the state court, and remanded the matter to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings.
Polo v. Innoventions_International, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2016)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) held the District Court should remand a Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) suit rather than dismiss it under the removal statute, and even if dismissal rather than remand was permitted under the remand rule, it was not clear that remand would be futile in this instance.
Shepard v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 2015 WL 11142456 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2015).
Another action succumbs to the adage that post removal events do not divest federal jurisdiction over actions removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
Plaintiff, Lauren Betancourt, brought a proposed products liability class action in the state court of Cobb County seeking to recover damages for injuries arising from her purchase and consumption of allegedly defective birth control pills. The case was removed as a putative class action having federal diversity under CAFA. After the Northern District Court of Georgia, Atlanta Division (“District Court”) denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the plaintiffs moved to remand the action to the state court.
Hargett_v._St_Bernard’s_Hospital_Inc.. et al., 2017 WL 1405034 (8th Cir. April 14, 2017).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the “Eighth Circuit”) found that under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005’s (“CAFA”) local-controversy exception citizenship can be ascertained either through irrefutable evidence, or through class definition before removal. If a Federal District Court allows the plaintiff to redefine the class to restrict it to a particular state post removal, then this will not divest a Federal District Court from exercising its jurisdiction.
Lowery v. Iod, Inc., 2016 WL 4247803 (N.D. Al. Aug. 11, 2016)
In this diversity action, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found that, in determining the amount in controversy, the value of an injunction is measured based on the gains to the plaintiffs rather than losses to the defendants. Continue Reading