Citifinancial Inc. v. Lightner, No. 5:06CV145, 2007 WL 3088087 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 22, 2007).

Never fear! None of the CAFA Law Blog case analysts are members of the Writers Guild of America (some of us are even true blue union-bustin’ management lawyers in our day jobs), and we are bringing you our own brand of Not Quite Ready for Prime Time entertainment with this sketch about a CAFA issue brewing in the Fourth Circuit:

[Cue lights, music, spinning globe, and smart ass anchor:]

Good evening. I’m your editor and what can I tell ya? 

On October 22, 2007, a district court in the Northern District of West Virginia stunned the world by denying a motion for a stay of remand. Background: Citifinancial sues Paul Lightner in state court for defaulting on a loan. Paul counterclaims for various things, then amends his counterclaim to allege a class action for predatory lending. Citifinancial removes the case under CAFA. Paul moves for remand, because Citifinancial is the plaintiff, citing Shamrock Oil and Gas v. Sheets. Citifinancial moves to realign the parties. The district court denies the motion to realign and grants the motion to remand. Citifinancial seeks appellate review of the remand by the 4th Circuit and concurrently moves the district court for a stay of the remand. This opinion (dated 10/22/07) denies the motion for a stay. 

As of today, there has been no decision on Citifinancial’s request for permission to appeal the remand. Also pending before the court of appeals is a motion to stay the district court proceedings, filed before the district court’s 10/22/07 order.

Breaking News: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

That’s the news, goodnight and have a pleasant tomorrow.

[Anchor wads up paper and throws it and pencil at camera, cue music and anchor spinning around in chair.]