Sanchez v. Ameriflight, LLC, 2018 WL 654170 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2018).
Here, the Ninth Circuit found that where parties were not diverse at the onset of the action, a post-filing change in citizenship cannot cure the original defect in diversity jurisdiction.
David Sanchez (“Plaintiff”), a California resident and former Ameriflight, LLC (“Ameriflight”) cargo pilot, brought a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of California alleging that Ameriflight improperly paid wages in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Ameriflight is an interstate air cargo carrier with operations in more than 10 states, organized under Nevada law, with its headquarters in Texas. However, at the time Plaintiff filed suit, Ameriflight was headquartered in California. Continue Reading
Allred v. Kellogg_Company, et al., 2018 WL 332904 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018).
A California district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that the statistical assumptions used in the defendant’s amount-in-controversy calculation were permissible under the circumstances. Continue Reading
Carter, et al., v. Westlex Corporation, et al., 2016 WL 1397648 (5th Cir. April 8, 2016).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order retaining jurisdiction over an action where the defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million jurisdictional threshold.
Graiser v. Visionworks of America, Inc., 2016 WL 1359048 (6th Cir. April 6, 2016).
The Sixth Circuit held that the 30-day removal period under CAFA does not begin if the plaintiff does not serve the defendant with an amended complaint, motion, other paper etc. from which a defendant can figure out that the amount-in-controversy exceeds CAFA’s jurisdictional threshold. The Sixth Circuit further held that if a defendant can determine from the documents served by the plaintiff that the amount-in-controversy could exceed $5 million, the defendant is not obligated to do so, unless the document is apparent.
Calmes v. Boca West Country Club, 2017 WL 4621112 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 16, 2017).
A district court in Florida dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) finding that the plaintiff did not satisfy his burden to establish that there were diverse class members or that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.
State of New Hampshire v Purdue Pharma, et al., 2018 WL 333824 (D.N.H. Jan. 9, 2018).
In this action a New Hampshire district court found that a parens patriae case was not sufficiently similar to a class action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 so as to justify removal under CAFA.
Carter_v_CIOX_Health_LLC, 2017 WL 2334886 (W.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017).
When denying a defendant’s request to remand a putative class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, a district court in New York educates the parties on the origins, purposes, and applicability of the local controversy exception and explains when the “no other action” element of the local controversy exception applies and why it exists. Continue Reading
Shelby v. Oak River Insurance Company, 2017 WL 6026672 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 5, 2017).
In this action, while denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Missouri found that the plaintiff’s tactics to avoid removal by being less than candid as to whether the case is a class action, influences the Court to not exercise its discretion to remand under the “interests of justice” exception.
Arnold v. OSF International Inc, et al, 2017 WL 2841697 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2017).
In this action, a California district court found that the amount sought by the plaintiff pursuant to her representative PAGA claim could not be aggregated with the amount sought pursuant to her class claims for the purpose of satisfying CAFA’s minimum amount in controversy requirement. Continue Reading
Bigsby v Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
A district court in New York found that because the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to establish that the required amount in controversy and number of putative plaintiffs, it had jurisdiction under CAFA—even though the plaintiffs’ federal claims would not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.