Scott v. Credico (USA) LLC, et al., 2017 WL 4210994 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017).
In this case, while remanding a case to the state court, a district court in California found that gross wages, paid and unpaid, should not be used in the amount in controversy calculation when the plaintiff seeks recovery of only unpaid wages.
Gibson v. Continental Resources, Inc. Case No. 5:15-cv-00611-M, (W.D. Okla. Oct. 8, 2015).
This order concerned a motion to remand a case to state court based on the plaintiff’s assertions that the defendant had not filed a sufficient removal notice.
The plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that the defendant failed to make proper payments owed to her and the class members on royalty interests in oil wells. The defendant removed this case to federal court alleging jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1452. In its notice of removal, defendant stated that “hundreds” of royalty owners have out-of-state addresses, as its basis for establishing diversity of citizenship. Further, the defendant contended that the number of class members exceeded 100 and the alleged damages were in excess of $10 million. Continue Reading
Jessica Casey, et al., v. Roger Denton, et al., 2017 WL 3461363 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2017).
In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in Illinois found that CAFA is not the exclusive means for establishing subject matter jurisdiction over class actions, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 original jurisdiction, and § 1332 CAFA jurisdiction, are two alternative bases for removal.
Loretta_Little_et_al_v_Pfizer_Inc_et_al., 2017 WL 3412300 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2017).
In this action involving claims from the plaintiffs in several lawsuits, the United States District Court, Northern District of California (the “District Court”), while remanding the cases to state court, found the plaintiffs have the ability to avoid jurisdiction by filing separate complaints naming less than 100 plaintiffs and by not moving for or otherwise proposing joint trial in the state court. The District Court further held a proposal for a joint trial made by one plaintiff cannot in effect bind another plaintiff if he or she has not made a proposal for a joint trial.
Marciela_Reyes_v_Carehouse_Healthcare_Center_LLC_et_al., 2017 WL 2869499 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017).
In this action, while denying Plaintiff Maricela Reyes’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand, the United States District Court, Central District of California (the “District Court”), held a motion to remand challenging subject matter jurisdiction can be filed at any time, and such motions are not subject to the thirty-day time limit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Jordan v Bayer Corporation, 2017 WL 1909059 (E.D. Mo. May 10, 2017).
In granting plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a Missouri District Court held that the Class Action Fairness Act did not apply where state court plaintiffs with common claims against a common defendant filed separate cases with fewer than 100 plaintiffs each to avoid federal jurisdiction under CAFA, where there was nothing in any case’s record that the plaintiffs proposed to try their separate cases jointly.
Stoddard v. Oxy USA Inc., 2017 WL 3190354 (D. Kan. July 27, 2017).
In denying a plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Kansas held that the defendant proved by the preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction was proper after the plaintiff failed to present any evidence rebutting the defendant’s supporting affidavit. Continue Reading
Rutledge_v_Healthport_Technologies, LLC, 2017 WL 728375 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)
To satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction, defendants may draw reasonable inferences from the complaint, but the defendants still need to be a concrete basis for their estimate. Continue Reading
Rosenbloom v. Jets America Inc., No 4:17-cv-01930 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2017).
In this action, while granting a plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Missouri found that while punitive damages are included in the amount in controversy, the existence of the required amount must be supported by competent proof, and mere speculation and unsupported allegations are insufficient.
The plaintiff brought a putative class action in Twenty–First Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County, Missouri, under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”) because she was charged an extra $2.56 for premium toppings on a pizza deal advertised by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to disclose that she would be charged extra for premium toppings.
Lubinski v. Hub Group Trucking, Inc., 634 Fed. Appx. 587 (6th Cir. April 1, 2016).
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of current and former Illinois delivery drivers, alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and unjust enrichment of the defendant, Hub Group Trucking (“HGT”).