Addison v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2015 WL 461958 (D. Mass. Feb. 4, 2015)

A district court in Massachusetts remanded a case to state court finding that a delay in filing a notice of removal unjustifiable when the complaint, the defendants’ prior filings, and underlying circumstances provided defendants with sufficient grounds to timely ascertain

Grozco v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 2015 WL 411209 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015).

A district court in California denied a motion to remand, finding that the defendant had sufficiently established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million.

The plaintiff class, comprising of current and former non-exempt hourly workers

Adams v. Toys ‘R’ Us, 2015 WL 395214 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015).

A district court in California denied remand finding that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to assume an amount-in-controversy in excess of the jurisdictional minimum under CAFA.

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of herself and at least 2000

Estate of Hanna, et al. v. Agape Senior, LLC, et al.,  2015 WL 247906 (D.S.C. Jan. 20, 2015).

A district court in South Carolina applied CAFA’s local controversy exception in remanding a case to state court, holding that the plaintiff class sought “significant relief” from local defendants, whose actions formed a “significant basis”

Levanoff, et al. v. SoCal Wings LLC, et al., 2015 WL 248338 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015).

In Levanoff, a district court in California remanded the case to state court and held that a  notice of removal was untimely filed where the removing defendant could have ascertained the amount in controversy from the