Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Carter_v_CIOX_Health_LLC, 2017 WL 2334886 (W.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017).
When denying a defendant’s request to remand a putative class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, a district court in New York educates the parties on the origins, purposes, and applicability of the local controversy exception and explains when the “no other action” element of the local controversy exception applies and why it exists.…
Continue Reading
Shelby v. Oak River Insurance Company, 2017 WL 6026672 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 5, 2017).
In this action, while denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Missouri found that the plaintiff’s tactics to avoid removal by being less than candid as to whether the case is a class action, influences the Court to not exercise its discretion to remand under the “interests of justice” exception.
Arnold v. OSF International Inc, et al, 2017 WL 2841697 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2017).
In this action, a California district court found that the amount sought by the plaintiff pursuant to her representative PAGA claim could not be aggregated with the amount sought pursuant to her class claims for the purpose of satisfying CAFA’s minimum amount in controversy requirement.…
Continue Reading
Bigsby v Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
A district court in New York found that because the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to establish that the required amount in controversy and number of putative plaintiffs, it had jurisdiction under CAFA—even though the plaintiffs’ federal claims would not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Johnson v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-01533-RLW (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2017).
In this action, while granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in Missouri found that the plaintiffs are permitted to avoid CAFA by dividing their plaintiffs into groups of less than 100 and filing an identical complaint for each group.
The plaintiffs brought an action in the Missouri state court against the defendants alleging injuries resulting from the plaintiffs’ use of Essure® permanent birth control system, a contraceptive device manufactured by the defendants.
Adams v. Grefer, 636 F. App’x 906 (5th Cir. 2016).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a remand order, finding that amending the complaint to substitute an heir for a deceased plaintiff did not commence a new action for the purposes of CAFA.…
Continue Reading
Romano v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., No. 16-5760 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017).
In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in New York found that amending a complaint after removal to eliminate class allegations does not deprive a court of jurisdiction under CAFA.
The plaintiffs brought a putative class action in Nassau County Supreme Court on behalf of current and former residents and property owners of Bethpage, New York, asserting various state law causes of action against the defendants, Northrop Grumman Corporation and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (collectively “Northrop”), for injuries and damages allegedly suffered as a result of the release of hazardous substances from its former site, formerly known as the Grumman-Aerospace-Bethpage Facility Site (“the Site”), as well as land donated by Grumman Corporation to the Town of Oyster Bay and currently known as Bethpage Community Park (the “Park”).
Gonzalez v. Banco Santander, et al., 2017 WL 5957735 (D.P.R. Dec. 1, 2017).
In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in Puerto Rico found that the “local controversy” exception to CAFA does not apply if the defendants engaged in conduct that could be alleged to have injured consumers throughout the country, or broadly throughout several states, even if it was filed as a single-state class action.
Bell v. Gateway Energy Services Corporation et al., 2017 WL 5956887 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017).
In this action, while granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court in New York found that in absence of direct business relationship, customers cannot arraign a corporation as a defendant.
Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., 2016 WL 1638045 (1st Cir. April 26, 2016)
Lisa C. Pazol, Maria C. Newman, Lisa Russ and Audrey J. Bennet (“Plaintiffs”) were registrants of an extreme obstacle course that was organized by Tough Mudder Incorporated, Tough Mudder, LLC and BK Bridge Events, LLC (“Defendants”). Defendants are business entities that organized physically challenging obstacle courses in various locations in the United States. Plaintiffs registered to participate in one of those events called the “Mudderella”, which was scheduled to take place on September 6, 2014, in Haverhill, Massachusetts.…
Continue Reading
