McGlinchey Stafford

Subscribe to McGlinchey Stafford's Posts
Contact:Read more about McGlinchey Stafford

David_Landon_Speed_v__JMA_Energy_Company__LLC, 2017 WL 4342615 (10th Cir. Oct. 2, 2017).

In this action, while affirming the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma’s (the “District Court”) decision remanding the case to Oklahoma state court, the United Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the “Tenth Circuit”) found the geographic dispersion of the class plaintiffs should not be overemphasized as a factor favoring federal jurisdiction.Continue Reading When There Is Ample Connection To The Forum State, Only A Clear Abuse Of The Local Forum Could Possibly Justify A Refusal To Remand

Myrick v. WellPoint, Inc., 764 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2014).

The Seventh Circuit held that a District Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand due to their failure to meet their burden of proof, was proper, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ contention that class citizenship discovery would have been too expensive.

Plaintiffs were former health insurance policy holders who filed a state court putative class action alleging violation of Illinois law in the cancellation of existing insurance policies by WellPoint, Inc. following its acquisition of RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. Defendants removed the action to the District Court under CAFA.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit- Lawyers Who Launch Class Actions Are Not In A Good Position To Complain About The Expenses They Entail

Hernandez v Starbucks Corporation, 2017 WL 2971858 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2017)

A California court granted a plaintiff’s motion to remand, finding that the defendants’ amount in controversy calculation, made under an assumption of a 100% violation rate, was unreasonable.
Continue Reading Defendants’ Assumption Of A 100% Violation Rate of Labor Laws in Calculation of Amount in Controversy Deemed Unreasonable

McCracken v Verisma Systems Inc, 2017 WL 2080279 (W.D.N.Y. May 15, 2017).

In retaining jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ case pursuant to CAFA, a New York District Court found that the homestate exception refers to “primary defendants” in the plural; thus, the plain language of the statute requires remand only when all of the primary defendants were residents of the same state in which the action was originally filed.Continue Reading CAFA’s Home-State Controversy Exception Applies When All “Primary Defendants” Are From the Same State

Pae v. Fox Restaurant Concepts, LLC, 2017 WL 3184464 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2017).

In this action, while denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in California found that the plaintiff must prove beyond conclusory statements that certain employees of a corporation direct, control, or coordinate its activities to establish the corporation’s principal place of business.
Continue Reading Conclusory Statements that Certain Employees Direct, Control, or Coordinate a Corporation’s Activities Are Insufficient to Prove the Corporation’s Principal Place of Business

Nichols v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, No 5:16-cv-01073-M (W.D. Ok. Sept. 13, 2017).

In this action, a district court in Oklahoma denied the plaintiff’s motion to abstain under the home-state mandatory abstention exception to CAFA finding that the plaintiff cannot rely solely on the allegations in his class action petition to establish that two-thirds or more of the members of the proposed class are citizens of Oklahoma, but must make some minimal evidentiary showing of the citizenship of the proposed class.

The plaintiff brought a putative class action for breach of lease, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, deceit and constructive trust against the defendants in the state court of Beaver County, Oklahoma. The class claims related to royalty payments for gas and its constituents.Continue Reading Plaintiff Must Present Persuasive Substantive Evidence To Establish The Citizenship Of The Class Members

Castillo v. Western Range Ass’n, 2017 WL 1364584 (D. Nev. April 13, 2017).

In dismissing a wage-and-hour class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that the CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement cannot be aggregated when each plaintiff’s claims are wholly unrelated to the other and when the defendants are not jointly liable.Continue Reading CAFA’s Amount in Controversy Could Not be Aggregated When Each Plaintiff’s Claims Are Wholly Unrelated to the Claims of the Other and When the Defendants Are Not Jointly Liable

Scott v. Credico (USA) LLC, et al., 2017 WL 4210994 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017).

In this case, while remanding a case to the state court, a district court in California found that gross wages, paid and unpaid, should not be used in the amount in controversy calculation when the plaintiff seeks recovery of only unpaid wages.Continue Reading Only Disputed Sums Of Money Is Counted In Assessing Amount In Controversy

Gibson v. Continental Resources, Inc. Case No. 5:15-cv-00611-M, (W.D. Okla. Oct. 8, 2015).

This order concerned a motion to remand a case to state court based on the plaintiff’s assertions that the defendant had not filed a sufficient removal notice.

The plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that the defendant failed to make proper payments owed to her and the class members on royalty interests in oil wells. The defendant removed this case to federal court alleging jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1452. In its notice of removal, defendant stated that “hundreds” of royalty owners have out-of-state addresses, as its basis for establishing diversity of citizenship. Further, the defendant contended that the number of class members exceeded 100 and the alleged damages were in excess of $10 million.
Continue Reading Allegations that Many Class Members Reside Out of State Satisfies Requirement for “Short and Plain Statement” in Notice of Removal

Jessica Casey, et al., v. Roger Denton, et al., 2017 WL 3461363 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2017).

In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in Illinois found that CAFA is not the exclusive means for establishing subject matter jurisdiction over class actions, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 original jurisdiction, and § 1332 CAFA jurisdiction, are two alternative bases for removal.Continue Reading CAFA Is Not The Exclusive Means For Establishing Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Class Actions