In Brinkley v Monterey Financial Services Inc., the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s remand order, and held that a plaintiff cannot remand an otherwise valid CAFA case to state court when only a portion of the class meets the two-thirds citizenship requirement. 
Continue Reading Absent Facts Regarding The Size Of The Entire Class, The Court Cannot Determine Whether Two-Thirds Of All Class Members Are In-State Citizens

Blevins v. Aksut, 2017 WL 782288 (11th Cir. Mar. 1, 2017)

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s holding that CAFA’s local controversy exception does not affect the district court’s ability to exercise other forms of jurisdiction.Continue Reading CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception Does Not Affect the District Court’s Ability to Exercise Federal Question Jurisdiction

Bradford v. The George Washington University, 2017 WL 1383653 (D.C. April 18, 2017)

In a consumer class action, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declined to remand the action to the state court finding that the contents of the business records relied upon by the defendants adequately provided the evidentiary basis for CAFA jurisdiction.Continue Reading Contents of Business Records Are Admissible As Evidence To Establish CAFA Jurisdiction

Gibson v Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc, 2016 WL 3960875 (W.D. Ark. June 28, 2016).

In this action, the Magistrate Judge held that the plaintiffs’ settlement correspondence provided the defendant significant detail, which made the case removable.Continue Reading A post-complaint settlement demand constitutes an “other paper” for purposes of CAFA removal.

Life of the South Insurance Company v. Carzell, 2017 WL 1174083 (11th Cir. March 29, 2017).

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit denied two corporate defendants’ petition to appeal because the companies’ dual citizenship was an insufficient basis to create federal diversity jurisdiction under CAFA when they shared a state of citizenship with all of the plaintiffs.Continue Reading Section 1332(C)(1) Gives Dual, Not Alternative, Citizenship To A Corporation Whose Principal Place Of Business Is In A State Different From Where It Is Incorporated

Seasons Homeowners Association Inc v Richmond Homes of Nevada Inc., 2016 WL 7155746 (D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2016).

In this construction defect dispute, a District Court in Nevada denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand because the the plaintiff’s  supporting documents pertained to a separate case and, therefore, could not serve as “other paper” to put the defendants on notice of the amount in controversy in the instant case.Continue Reading Documents Pertaining To A Separate Case Does Not Constitute As ‘Other Paper’ To Ascertain Federal Jurisdiction Under CAFA

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

Heather v Air Methods Corporation, 2016 WL 7109675 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 6, 2016).

The Western District of Oklahoma found that a defendant may rely on an estimate of the potential damages from the allegations in the complaint in order to meet its burden to establish the CAFA’s amount in controversy requirement.

In Heather, the plaintiffs brought a putative class action in state court alleging that the defendants charged unreasonable rates for air ambulance services that they provided to the plaintiffs and purported class members.Continue Reading Estimation Of Potential Damages From The Complaint’s Allegations Is Acceptable For Establishing CAFA’s Amount In Controversy