In an action removed under CAFA, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, but reversed the District Court’s determination of attorneys’ fee and remanded the action to consider whether the fee should be awarded on the trebled damages.
In this case, the plaintiffs, newspaper subscribers, brought a putative class action in the state court alleging that the defendant corporation owns several newspapers throughout California involved in false and misleading billing practices in connection with newspaper subscriptions.
In this putative class action, the Ninth Circuit held that a California state court’s pre-removal consolidation of two separately filed class actions resulted in a single consolidated action for purposes of applying the local controversy exception to removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
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 putative class of action in the state court alleging violation of the FLSA, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and purchases, failure to timely pay wages and provide wage statements in violation of California Labor Code, and violation of UCL.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s order remanding the action finding that the defendant’s assumption of the amount-in-controversy objectively established that the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA’s jurisdictional minimum.
In this case, affirming the judgment of a district court for an award of attorney’s fee to class counsel, the Eighth Circuit found that 28 U.S.C. § 1712 does not authorize class counsel to choose its method of payment calculation for purposes of computing attorneys’ fees, departing from the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the statute.
Clay v. Chobani LLC, 2015 WL 4743891 (S.D. Cal. Aug.10, 2015).
In this action, a District Court declined to remand the action to state court finding that the defendants had satisfied their burden of proof by showing a reasonable chain of logic based on the allegations of the complaint and sufficient evidence to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.
The plaintiff, purchaser of Chobani yogurt for personal consumption, brought a putative class action in California Superior Court on behalf of a class of all California retail purchasers of the Chobani Products alleging violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and negligent misrepresentation.
Windom v. BorgWarner, Inc., 2014 WL 10290888 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 17, 2014).
In an action brought by clients against their former attorneys, the district court found that, in determining the amount in controversy in a mass action, the punitive damages claims of the putative class cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional requirement and that, ultimately, the propriety of remand comes down to accurately doing the math.
Patsy Windom and 287 other plaintiffs brought a state court action claiming that they were wronged by a group of attorneys in a PCB contamination settlement gone awry. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant attorneys’ secret deals, obfuscation, and misrepresentations enriched the defendants and deprived the plaintiffs of settlement funds.
In an action, a Tennessee District Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, where he refused to dismiss a case sua sponte on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge was of the view that when a case is referred to a magistrate by district court, he is bound to the extent of referral, which in this case was class certification; as a result, dismissing the case sua sponte would mean that he would be exceeding his jurisdiction.
A district court in New York granted in part and denied in part a defendant’s motion to stay discovery while a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under CAFA was pending. The District Court found that although the putative class satisfied the local controversy and the home state exceptions under CAFA, defendant should produce unredacted information on the putative class members’ to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to verify Plaintiffs’ state citizenship, which had been withheld at the initial stage of the litigation.