While these cases are close to being classified as "Not Worthy" for prime time posts, we thought we would give you something a little more substantive than just a listing of these cases and tell you to read them if you are bored.  So, here are 4 case notes of almost not worthy of prime time analysis. 

Ava Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., — F.Supp.2d —-, 2008 WL 5170186 (S.D.N.Y., Dec 09, 2008)

The plaintiffs in this class action were medical providers who were assigned certain insurance claims by injured persons who had no-fault insurance policies. The plaintiffs contended that they were owed payments under these policies. 

The defendant insurance companies removed this action originally filed in New York state court to federal court under CAFA. 

First, the Court held that there was a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy was over $5 million finding that the amount in controversy was approximately $40 million. The Court also found that the local controversy exception did not apply. The local controversy exception to CAFA would justify remand if at least one of the significant defendants was local. The Court held that the New York insurance companies were not significant defendants in that the majority of the claims were made against foreign insurers and, in particular, against State Farm.

DeVito v. Aetna, Inc., — F.Supp.2d —-, 2008 WL 482847 (D.N.J., Feb 25, 2008)

This case does not discuss CAFA jurisdiction because subject matter jurisdiction existed under ERISA. Jurisdiction under CAFA was asserted as an alternative and was not addressed by the Court. 

City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement System v. Citigroup Mortg. Loan Trust Inc., 572 F.Supp.2d 314, 319, 2008 WL 3891221, 5 (E.D.N.Y.) (E.D.N.Y.,2008)

This case also does not address CAFA, stating “[i]n light of the fact that the court has held that removal is proper under the Bankruptcy Code, the court need not reach the issue of whether removal is also appropriate pursuant to CAFA, and expresses no opinion as to the merits of that argument.”

Sorrentino v. ASN Roosevelt Center, LLC, 588 F.Supp.2d 350 (E.D.N.Y., Dec 01, 2008)(NO. 08CV0550 ADS ETB).

This case involved claims for damages stemming from water intrusion into a luxury apartment complex.  (Editors’ Note:  See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Ventimiglia posted on August 5, 2009 which has similar facts.)  However, the Court ruled on other CAFA issues given that additional parties were involved in this class action. 

First, the Court held that the amount in controversy was satisfied as the rent claims, medical damages, and other damages exceeded $5 million. 

Second, the Court held that the local controversy exception was inapplicable because the plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of showing that greater than two-thirds of the putative class members were from the same state. 

However, the Court ultimately remanded the case under the discretionary exception to CAFA finding that plaintiffs showed that over one-third of claimants were from the same state and that the issues involved were local in nature and governed by the laws of New York.