Header graphic for print
CAFA Law Blog Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

Category Archives: Case Summaries

Subscribe to Case Summaries RSS Feed

PAGA Penalties Cannot Be Used to Reach CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement

Posted in Case Summaries, Wage and Hour

Henry Chen, et al. v. United Talent Agency, LLC, et al., 2017 WL 946642 (C.D. Cal. March 10, 2017). A class action filed in state court was remanded by the U.S. District Court in California because the court found that the removing defendant improperly relied on PAGA penalties and anticipated but un-accrued attorney’s fees to […]

Read All ...

Mass Action Jurisdiction Not Available When Actions Were Coordinated Solely for the Purpose of Discovery

Posted in Case Summaries

Banh v. USPlabs, LLC, 2015 WL 5012568 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) The District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to remand in Banh v. USPlabs, LLC, one of sixteen cases that had been consolidated for purposes of discovery in California state court before being removed under CAFA’s mass action provision.

Read All ...

Defendant Meets the Legal Certainty Standard to Defeat Remand Challenge

Posted in Case Summaries, Jurisdictional Amount

Watson v. American National Property and Casualty Co, 2015 WL 5007967 (W.D. Penn. Aug. 20, 2015) The Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for remand, finding that the defendant met the legal certainty standard supporting federal jurisdiction in an action alleging that the defendant improperly rejected underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage for people that had been in […]

Read All ...

CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception Applies When an Action has Similar Factual Allegations, Regardless of Whether there are the Same or Similar Causes of Action

Posted in Case Summaries

Dutcher v. Matheson, 840 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2016). In this action, affirming the judgment of a district court in Utah denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, the Tenth Circuit found that differences in the causes of action pleaded are not enough to distinguish cases under the demands of CAFA’s local-controversy exception, which looks exclusively […]

Read All ...

Interlocutory Review Provision Is Limited To Orders Granting Or Denying Remand Of Class Actions Removed Under CAFA

Posted in Case Summaries

Chan Healthcare Group PS v Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 2017 WL 24619 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017). The Ninth Circuit found that the statutory exception to the general rule that remand orders are not reviewable on appeal applied only to orders granting or denying remand of diversity class actions brought and removed under CAFA–not […]

Read All ...

Defendant’s Second Notice of Removal Timely and Proper due to Relevant Change in Circumstances caused by Supreme Court’s Decision in Standard Fire

Posted in Case Summaries, Wage and Hour

Taylor v. Cox Communications California, LLC, 2016 WL 7422717 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, finding that the defendant’s second notice of removal was timely and proper, particularly when the plaintiff did not provide the defendant with any “other paper” necessary to […]

Read All ...

A Removing Defendant Is Not Obligated To Research, State, And Prove The Plaintiff’s Claims

Posted in Case Summaries, Wage and Hour

Ritenour v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, 2017 WL 59069 (C.D. Cal.  Jan. 5, 2017). In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in California, found that  the defendant only needs to offer evidence sufficient to establish that CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement was met by a preponderance of the evidence and was not obligated […]

Read All ...

CAFA Jurisdiction Cannot be Obtained Through Defendant’s Request for Consolidation of Cases

Posted in Case Summaries

Mcpeters v. Bayer Corp., 2017 WL 57250 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2017). In remanding this case back to state court, a Missouri District Court  found that cases involving fewer than 100 plaintiffs cannot be removed under CAFA through a defendant’s call for consolidation of similar cases, which would increase the amount of plaintiffs to reach […]

Read All ...

It’s Not How Much You Recover That Matters, It’s How Much You Ask…

Posted in Case Summaries

Hammond v. Stamps.Com, Inc., 2016 WL 7367770 (10th Cir., Dec. 20, 2016) Reversing a district court’s order remanding the action, the Tenth Circuit found that federal jurisdiction under the CAFA does not depend on how much the plaintiff is likely to recover, but on the amount the plaintiff’s allegations suggest she might lawfully recover. In this case, […]

Read All ...

Plaintiffs’ Stipulation In A Complaint That The Amount In Controversy Is Less Than $5 Million Does Not Take A Case Outside CAFA’s Scope

Posted in Case Summaries

Watson_v_Prestige_Delivery_Systems_Inc., 2017 WL 635388 (W.D. Penn. Feb. 16, 2017). In this action, while granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (the “District Court”) found that pre-certification stipulation in a complaint stating the amount in controversy is less than $5 million does not, by itself, take a case […]

Read All ...

Damages Stated in a Mediation Brief Were Not Enough to Establish the $5 Million Jurisdictional Minimum under CAFA

Posted in Case Summaries

Vitale_v_Celadon_Trucking_Services_Inc., 2017 WL 626356 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017). In this action, where the United States District Court, Central District of California (the “District Court”) granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand, it also found plaintiff’s mediation brief did not represent a reasonable estimate of his claims, and therefore could not support the defendant’s burden of […]

Read All ...

District Court Decides to Use Lodestar Method to Provide Class Counsel with Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Coupon Settlement

Posted in Case Summaries

Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 8484421 (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2015). In this action, the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts (the “District Court”), approved a settlement reached between the parties. Thereafter, the District Court determined the attorneys’ fees to be awarded class counsel (the “Class Counsel”) after giving due consideration to the […]

Read All ...

District Court Holds “Local Controversy Exception” Applies And Remands Case Back to State Court

Posted in Case Summaries

Rhodes v. Kroger Co. 2015 WL 5006070 (E.D. Ark., 2015) An Arkansas district court reluctantly remanded a putative class action back to state court based on the “local controversy exception” to the CAFA. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that “significant relief” was sought from the defendants’ local district managers, and the district managers’ alleged conduct formed a […]

Read All ...

Costs Incurred on Injunction and Declaratory Relief Are Part of the Amount-in-controversy Under CAFA.

Posted in Case Summaries

Adams v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 2013 WL 12058059 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 8, 2013). A district court in Iowa denied a motion to remand because the costs incurred by a defendant in complying with an injunction or declaratory judgment, including the “gap” between the parties’ calculations of benefits owed, were properly considered to determine […]

Read All ...

Successive Removal Appropriate only when Subsequent Pleadings or Events Reveal New and Different Grounds

Posted in Case Summaries

Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F.Supp.3d 1055 (2014). The District Court for the Central District of California remanded a case for the second time to the state court finding that the defendant’s second removal was not based on grounds that were different from those considered in the initial remand order. The plaintiff brought a […]

Read All ...

Fifth Circuit Finds Ambiguous Complaint Indicates a Broad Class Definition Which Defeats CAFA’s Local Conroversy Exception

Posted in Case Summaries

Arbuckle Mountain Ranch of Tex., Inc. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 810 F.3d 335 (5th Cir., 2016). The Fifth Circuit found that in an ambiguous complaint suggesting two class definitions (one a narrow definition, the other a broad definition), if the pleading taken as a whole indicates a broader definition, it should be assumed that the […]

Read All ...

The Allegations in the Complaint are Facially Sufficient to Establish an Amount-in-Controversy under CAFA

Posted in Case Summaries

In_re_Whole_Foods_Market__Inc, 2015 WL 5737692 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2015). The United States District Court, Western District of Texas (the “District Court”), denied two motions to remand finding the allegations in the respective complaints was facially sufficient to establish an amount-in-controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).

Read All ...

West Virginia District Court Remands Putative Class Action because Defendants Failed to Establish the Requisite Amount in Controversy

Posted in Case Summaries

Crookshanks v. Healthport Technologics, LLC, 2016 WL4099296 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 2, 2016). In Crookshanks v. Healthport Technologies, a district court in West Virginia remanded an action to state court because the defendants’’ calculation of the amount in controversy was insufficient to satisfy CAFA’’ s jurisdictional threshold. In this case, Crookshanks, representing himself and others similarly […]

Read All ...

“Internal Affairs Doctrine” and the “Securities Exception” Requires District Court to Remand Securities-related Class Action

Posted in Case Summaries

Fannin v UMTH_Land Dev. L.P., CV 16-641-SLR, 2016 WL 7042078 (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2016) A Delaware district court, when faced with a putative class action whose claims fell solely and squarely within CAFA’s “internal affairs doctrine” and “securities exception,” had no choice but to remand the action to state court.

Read All ...

Post-Removal Amendments Clarifying Citizenship of Class Members is Permissible

Posted in Case Summaries

In_re_Anthem_Inc_Data_Breach_Litigation, 129 F.Supp.3d 887 (N.D. Cal. 2015). The United States District Court, Northern District of California (the “District Court”) concluded post removal amendments clarifying the citizenship of class members was relevant to consider if a complaint met the minimal diversity requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) enabling the Federal Court to exercise jurisdiction […]

Read All ...