Published By

Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 10-2407, 2010 WL 4286367 (7th Cir. (Ill.) Nov. 02, 2010).

Wanna tell you a story,
About the house-man blues

This story of house-main blues is about a dryer instead of being able to pay the rent.

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

Mireles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al, 2012 WL 84723 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012).

In an action brought by borrowers alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation against national banks, a district court remanded the case to state court, finding that the defendants primarily failed to meet their burden to establish that this was a mass action under CAFA.

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

MG Building Materials, Ltd. v. Paychex, Inc., 2012 WL 201725 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2012).

A district court in New York retained jurisdiction over an action, finding that when an amended complaint alters the very nature of a suit and virtually makes it a “new action,” the defendant’s right to remove is “revived.”

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

South Carolina v. LG Display Co., Ltd., No. 3:11–cv–00729–JFA, 2011 WL 4344074 (D.S.C. Sept. 14, 2011) and South Carolina v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 3:11-cv-00731-JFA, 2011 WL 4344079 (D.S.C. Sept. 14, 2011).

A District Court in South Carolina held that under a parens patriae action (that is a fancy law school word for a lawsuit brought by the state on behalf of its citizens), the State has a quasi-sovereign interest in bringing an action to enforce its laws and disgorge the proceeds of ill-gotten gains on behalf of its citizens who fell victim to TV picture price fixing. 

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

Bank v. Hydra Group, LLC, No. 10–4085–cv., 2011 WL 4494380 (2d Cir. Sept. 29, 2011).

A California plaintiff brought a putative class action against Hydra Group LLC claiming that it sent him and others unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements in violation of § 17529.5(a)(3) of the California Business & Professional Code. (Each night as I say my prayers I pray for peace in the Middle East and that all unsolicited emails and faxes will cease.)

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

Stevenson v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. CIV S–11–1433 KJM DAD, 2011 WL 4928753 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011).

It makes sense that if you work at the dollar store, you are only going to get paid a dollar an hour. Am I right? In this action, a District Court in California held that where there is little evidentiary basis provided in a complaint, courts must be persuaded that the defendant’s estimates are made in good faith and are reasonable to rely on.

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

Kazlauskas v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., No. 11–2144, 2011 WL 4499001 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2011).

Every now and then a CAFA related case comes across my desk that makes me think to myself (and sometimes out loud, what the hell?). This is one of those cases that made me take a minute out of my day of lawyering to get on PACER and find out the back story.

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

Andrews v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1:11 CV 1379, 2011 WL 5118309 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2011).

Nationwide is NOT on your side, say the plaintiffs in this case.  In this action, a District Court in Ohio held that if the court’s ruling requires a business establishment to change its business practice, then such “business practice” costs may be included in determining the amount in controversy. 

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

Brey Corp. v. LQ Management LLC, No. AW-11-cv-00718-AW, 2011 WL 5244647 (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2011).

In this action, a District Court in Maryland held that the amount-in-controversy is decided from the complaint itself, unless it is shown that the amount stated in the complaint is not claimed in “good faith,” or that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed “to a legal certainty.”

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

Opelousas General Hosp. Authority v. Fairpay Solutions, Inc., No. 11–30610,2011 WL 3902996 (5th Cir. La. Sept. 6, 2011).

While reversing a district court’s remand order under the local controversy exception, the Fifth Circuit held that the mere fact that relief might be sought against the local defendant for the conduct of others (via joint liability) does not convert the conduct of others into the conduct of the local defendant so as to satisfy the ‘significant basis’ requirement.

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