Published By

Somal v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company,Case No. C09-1064RSL (W.D. Wash. Sept. 29, 2009).

Teen idol Bobby Sherman performed the hit song, Seattle, declaring that “the bluest skies you’ve ever seen are in Seattle…and the hills the greenest green in Seattle.” Last year, the defendant, Allstate, must have been gazing at the blue skies and hiking the green hills instead of focusing on the preponderance of the evidence standard required to establish the amount in controversy under CAFA! 

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

In re Jamster Marketing Litigation, MDL No. 1751, U.S.D.C. S. D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008 (Miller, J.).

You may want to think twice about accepting an offer for a “free” download of your favorite Lady Gaga song as a cell phone ring tone. The sound that you may hear may be the ringing cash register of Jamster, a former subsidiary of Internet infrastructure provider VeriSign, which specializes in custom content for mobile devices, and which has been accused of defrauding customers into paying for ring tones that they didn’t authorize, and using deceptive marketing methods to lure consumers into purchasing its products. Say it ain’t so! 

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

In Re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1997, Case No. 08-7082 (N.D. Ill. August 13, 2009).

In In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division found the home state controversy exception applied and told the parties BCNU. Can’t figure that one out? Ask your nine year old.

Am I RMOCC (running my own cuckoo clock)? Maybe, but here’s the deal. I’m funny. I mean, really funny. Sometimes people take one look at me and LOL before I’ve even said a word. (If I have to translate LOL for you, you’ve just been living under a rock and even The Blog can’t help you.) I am so beyond LOL, or even LMAO. I am more in the league of ROTFLUTS (rolling on the floor laughing unable to speak). But when our editors assigned this case to me, I just was not inspired. Seriously, I had nothing. I was AAK (asleep at keyboard), not to be confused with AFK (away from keyboard)) on this one. 

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

Thomas v. Bank of America Corporation, et al, 09-11143 (11th Cir. June 12, 2009).

In Thomas v. Bank of America Corp., the Eleventh Circuit found a case does not become removable as a CAFA case until a document is received by the defendant from the plaintiff that unambiguously establishes federal jurisdiction.

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

Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., No. 09-80706-CIV-MARRA, 2009 WL 4547042 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2009)

A basic lesson in removal procedure for defendants: your evidence that removal is proper must come from the plaintiffs and must be submitted with your notice of removal.  If you had any doubt on this subject, then the decision in Pretka, shows that this procedure applies to removing under CAFA as well.

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

Vanegas v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. 09-181 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2009)

Well, this post has absolutely nothing to do with those banana-seated bikes. Sorry. Rather, this very brief, non-reported case highlights the fact that – in a banana peel (like “in a nutshell” – c’mon!) – the CAFA removal statute “is to be ‘strictly construed against removal jurisdiction and any doubt must be resolved in favor of remand.’”

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

Alvarez et al v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al, 585 F.3d 890 (5^th Cir., October 19, 2009). 

The plaintiffs should not have tried it. Did they really think the judges of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would not see right through it? What were they thinking? [Ok, ok, maybe it was all an innocent change of circumstances, but it is more fun to think of it this way.] 

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

Delaney v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc., No. 09-cv-1421 (D. N.J. Oct. 21, 2009)

9,269 gift cards can buy a lot of shrimp platters, but they are not redeemable for CAFA jurisdiction if your calculation of the maximum damages per putative class member is tad low. 

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

Redd v. Suntrup Hyundai, Inc., No. 09CV411MLM (E.D. Mo. Aug. 28, 2009) and Tonnies v. Southland Imports, Inc., No. 09CV414SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2009).

Sometimes you don’t need to argue the kitchen sink, but, then again, you might need to wash dishes. This pair of opinions from the Eastern District of Missouri illustrates that proving the domicile of class members to meet CAFA’s “home state” exception (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)) can involve some strange evidence. 

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

Brennan v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 08-CV-02970-JF (E.D.Pa. Oct. 7, 2009) –

♪♪♪ Real Litigant of Genius (Sorry Miller Lite for the shameless rip) ♪♪♪

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