Roth v. CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P., 2012 WL 5456406 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012).
A District Court in California, addressing a motion to remand, was left with serious doubts as to the propriety of the removal because the defendants at no time referenced any “paper” that they had received that allowed them to first ascertain that the case has become removable. Continue Reading
Ellison v. Autozone, Inc., 2012 WL 5177478 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2012).
In this racial discrimination and state wage laws violation action, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that the federal courts are not deprived of jurisdiction over individual claims through a subsequent dismissal or transfer of class claims when jurisdiction was proper at the time of removal. Continue Reading
Velasquez v. HMS Host USA, Inc., 2012 WL 6049608 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012).
A District Court in California held that, if one could be found liable for civil penalties under the law asserted by the plaintiffs, then he is a proper defendant to the action and not joined fraudulently to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Continue Reading
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 11-1450, 2013 WL 1104735 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2013).
While we are not surprised by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Knowles issued on March 19, 2013, we do find it interesting that most commentators on this case have missed what we think is the real story from the decision. The best part of this first CAFA decision from the Supreme Court is what the court had to say about CAFA, not just about stipulations. So, if you are interested in the good stuff from Knowles, read on Continue Reading
Abraham v. St. Croix Renaissance Group, L.L.L.P., 2012 WL 60998502 (D.V.I. Dec. 7, 2012).
I’ve got 2 tickets to Paradise. Won’t you pack your bags, we’ll leave tonight! Well, if Paradise is St. Croix, then Eddie Money may want to read this case before going.
Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc., 2012 WL 5464620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012).
In a class action based on the alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, the Northern District Court of California held that the controversy was “not local,” and it denied remand on the basis that the defendants engaged in conduct that could have injured consumers across the country making them vulnerable to similar claims in other states.
MyinfoGuard, LLC v. Sorrell, 2012 WL 5469913 (D. Vt. Nov. 9, 2012).
Although the enactment of CAFA was meant to expand federal court jurisdiction over class actions, the Vermont district court did not deviate from the traditional “whole complaint”/ wholesale approach analysis when evaluating whether the State is the real party in interest in this parens patriae action.
Well, it took a few years, but the U.S. Supreme Court finally took a CAFA case: Standard Insurance Co. v. Knowles. As our brilliant readers already know, the Class Action Fairness Act has generated extensive litigation on damages stipulations since its 2005 enactment, but the law remains unsettled. However, our very own CAFA Law Blog experts, Anthony Rollo, Michael Ferachi, and Kimberly Higginbotham, have summarized all you need to know about Knowles, CAFA, and damage stipulations in a BNA Insight article entitled, "Finally! The Inaugural Class Action Fairness Act Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court and What It’s All About." You can access the article here.
The U.S. Supreme Court hear oral argument on January 7, and you can access an outstanding summary of the case and the oral argument at SCOTUSblog here.
Kim v. Mosaic Sales Solutions Holding Co., No. 2:10-cv-03186-MCE-GGH, 2011 WL 775895 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011).
As lawyers, sometimes we are not the best number crunchers. After all, many of us pursued degrees in Political Science because there was very little math required. But, when fooling with CAFA, make sure your math is correct if you have the burden to prove the jurisdictional amount.
Here is our second guest post for the day. This one is from Kevin Krist, a personal injury attorney located in Houston.