Sotelo v. Directrevenue, LLC, 384 F.Supp.2d 1219 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2005).
The U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently published an opinion in which it addressed several dispositive motions and a motion to compel arbitration in this case initially filed in state court and removed by the defendants on Class Action Fairness Act jurisdictional grounds. The plaintiff, Steven Sotelo, filed his putative class action complaint against several defendants, alleging that the defendants had caused certain software, commonly known as “spyware,” to be downloaded onto his computer without his knowledge or consent, and that the spyware then tracked his internet use and reported the results to the defendants. Sotelo alleged that these actions by the defendants invaded his privacy and caused substantial damage to his computer. The defendants timely removed the case to federal court under CAFA, and then, filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and motions to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.

The court’s only reference to CAFA was in an initial footnote, in which it observed that CAFA provides diversity jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and there is minimal diversity of citizenship. The court then went on to address all of the arbitration and dispositive motions filed by the parties, but without any further discussion of CAFA.