McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLCNo. 4:16-cv-00172 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 2018).

In this action, while remanding a case to state court, a district court in Missouri found that the plaintiffs’ burden of proof, as the party invoking the local controversy exception, is by a “preponderance” or more than 50% of the evidence.

Continue Reading

Pattison v. Omnitrition International, Inc. No. 2:17-cv-01454 (W. D. Wa. Jan. 5, 2018).

In this action, while granting the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the order remanding the matter to state court, a District Court in Washington found that the defendants’ declarant was not required to attach underlying documentation to support her statements, as her

White Knight Diner, LLC v. Arbitration Forums, Inc. No. 4:17-cv-02406 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 12, 2018).

In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a District Court in Missouri found that the plaintiffs could meet their burden under the CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception by presenting evidence of citizenship or by defining the class to

Kenny v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., 2018 WL 650998 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2018).

In this action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) found that a district court lacks authority to sua sponte remand an action unless there is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the defendants’ demurrer did not constitute a waiver of their right to removal.

Plaintiff Kris Kenny (“Plaintiff”) brought a putative class action in the Superior Court of California (the “State Court”) challenging Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) policy that required employees who had suffered workplace-related injuries to submit to drug and/or urine testing.
Continue Reading

Sanchez v. Ameriflight, LLC, 2018 WL 654170 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2018).

Here, the Ninth Circuit found that where parties were not diverse at the onset of the action, a post-filing change in citizenship cannot cure the original defect in diversity jurisdiction.

David Sanchez (“Plaintiff”), a California resident and former Ameriflight, LLC (“Ameriflight”) cargo pilot, brought a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of California alleging that Ameriflight improperly paid wages in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Ameriflight is an interstate air cargo carrier with operations in more than 10 states, organized under Nevada law, with its headquarters in Texas. However, at the time Plaintiff filed suit, Ameriflight was headquartered in California.
Continue Reading

Allred v. Kellogg_Company, et al., 2018 WL 332904 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018).

A California district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that the statistical assumptions used in the defendant’s amount-in-controversy calculation were permissible under the circumstances.
Continue Reading

Carter, et al., v. Westlex Corporation, et al., 2016 WL 1397648 (5th Cir. April 8, 2016).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order retaining jurisdiction over an action where the defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million jurisdictional threshold.

Continue Reading

Graiser v. Visionworks of America, Inc., 2016 WL 1359048 (6th Cir. April 6, 2016).

The Sixth Circuit held that the 30-day removal period under CAFA does not begin if the plaintiff does not serve the defendant with an amended complaint, motion, other paper etc. from which a defendant can figure out that the amount-in-controversy exceeds CAFA’s jurisdictional threshold. The Sixth Circuit further held that if a defendant can determine from the documents served by the plaintiff that the amount-in-controversy could exceed $5 million, the defendant is not obligated to do so, unless the document is apparent.

Continue Reading

Calmes v. Boca West Country Club, 2017 WL 4621112 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 16, 2017).

A district court in Florida dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) finding that the plaintiff did not satisfy his burden to establish that there were diverse class members or that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.

Continue Reading