Carranza v Nordstrom Inc., 2014 WL 10537816 (C. D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2014).

A federal district court in California refused to exercise jurisdiction in a wage and hour action brought for violations of the California Labor Code and other state laws and seeking PAGA penalties, finding that the evidence proffered by the defendant fell short of the preponderance of the evidence standard espoused in the United States Supreme Court’s Standard Fire decision to establish the amount in controversy in CAFA cases.
Continue Reading

 Eagle US 2, LLC v Abraham, 627 Fed.Appx. 351 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2015).

In this action, the Fifth Circuit found that the “100-or-more-persons” requirement under the mass action provision of CAFA cannot be satisfied by piercing the pleadings across multiple state court actions filed by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, breaking up their client base into multiple suits with identical allegations, when the plaintiffs have not proposed that those actions be tried jointly or otherwise consolidated.


Continue Reading

Reno Cova v. Charter Communications, 2016 WL 4368100 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 16, 2016)

The District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand, finding that a defendant is not required to admit the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, and thus deprive itself of potential defenses, to avail itself of a federal forum under CAFA.

The plaintiffs, subscribers of defendant’s services, brought a putative class action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri, alleging that the defendant’s advertisements and agreements with its subscribers of its internet, television and phone services were deceptive, fraudulent, misleading; violated their rights to privacy and of publicity; and constituted fraud or negligent inducement to purchase its products and services in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”).
Continue Reading

Dobbs v. Wood Group PSN, Inc., 2016 WL 4367218 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2016)

The District Court found that the defendant did not satisfy CAFA’s jurisdictional amount-in-controversy threshold. The defendant failed to demonstrate by preponderance of the evidence that its assumption of imputing a 100 percent violation rate was justified. The Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Kern asserting claims against the defendant, his employer, for violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including unpaid meal and rest premiums, unpaid overtime and minimum wages, waiting time penalties, etc. In his complaint, the plaintiff did not specify the amount of damages. The defendant, however, removed the action to federal court under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), contending that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to remand.


Continue Reading