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

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.


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”).


Continue Reading

Cowan v. Devon Energy Corporation et al., No. 6:16-cv-00510-SPS (E.D. Ok. Nov. 8, 2017).

In this action, while granting the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Oklahoma found that in determining the six enumerated factors for the application of the discretionary exception, a ‘neutral’ factor should not weigh against remand.

The plaintiff, an oil and gas well owner, brought a putative class action in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma alleging that the defendants, operator of the well, violated Oklahoma statute that required payment of interest on delayed payment of revenue from oil and gas production. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants routinely delayed payment of production proceeds and denied owners the interest payments to which they were entitled as part of an overarching scheme to avoid its obligations under the Oklahoma Law.


Continue Reading

Roberts v. Mars Petcare US Inc., No. 17-6122 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2017).

In this action, while reversing a district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to remand, the Sixth Circuit found that a corporation cannot rely on its State of incorporation and ignore its principal place of business to create diversity under CAFA.

The plaintiff, a citizen of Tennessee, brought a putative class action on behalf of Tennessee citizens in Tennessee state court against the defendant, a citizen of Tennessee and Delaware, alleging that the defendant conspired with other pet food manufacturers, veterinarian chains, and a retailer to employ a “prescription-authorization requirement” to sell pet food at above market prices in violation of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act.


Continue Reading

Nichols v. Chesapeake Operating LLCNo 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

Rosenbloom v. Jets America Inc., No 4:17-cv-01930 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2017).

In this action, while granting a plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Missouri found that while punitive damages are included in the amount in controversy, the existence of the required amount must be supported by competent proof, and mere speculation and unsupported allegations are insufficient.

The plaintiff brought a putative class action in Twenty–First Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County, Missouri, under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”) because she was charged an extra $2.56 for premium toppings on a pizza deal advertised by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to disclose that she would be charged extra for premium toppings.


Continue Reading

Alanis, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00365 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017).

In this action involving claims from plaintiffs in several lawsuits, a district court in California remanded the cases to the state court and found that the plaintiffs’ intention or desire for coordinated proceeding in the absence of some concrete step to effect joinder remain possibilities or predictions, not “voluntary and affirmative” proposals for a joint trial.

The plaintiffs in related cases originally filed their complaints in California state court alleging that Lipitor, a prescription drug developed and manufactured by the defendant Pfizer, Inc., and marketed and distributed by the defendant McKesson Corporation (together, “the defendants”), caused them to develop type 2 diabetes.


Continue Reading