Once upon a time these claims began in federal district court

The plaintiffs were hoping the federal judges would be good sports


What kind of relief were they seeking you ask

Gaining federal subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA was their first task


For various reasons their requests were not heeded

This left the plaintiffs without the federal court jurisdiction they needed


So back to state court is where these cases went

Because without the help of CAFA, federal jurisdiction was absent


And now without further ado

We introduce the cases that were not worthy to you:

·        Dominion Exp. & Prod., Inc. v. Ameron Int’l Corp., No. 07-3888, 2007 WL 4233562 (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 2007).

·        Sylvester v. Menu Foods, Inc., No. 07-00409, 2007 WL 4291022 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2007).

·        Sylvester v. Menu Foods, Inc., No. 07-00409, 2007 WL 4291024 (D. Haw. Dec. 5, 2007).

·        Jansen v. American Express Corp., No. 06-C-2700, 2007 WL 4293635 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2007).

·        Schwartz v. Comcast Corp., No. 06-4855, 2007 WL 4212693 (3rd Cir. Nov. 30, 2007).

·        Pivoris v. TCF Fin. Corp., No. 07-C-26732007 WL 4355040 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2007).

·        G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Franklin Bank, No. 06-C-949, 2007 WL 4365359 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2007).

Okay, most of our readers are very bright, good looking, and speak French fluently, but a few of our readers are not so cultured.  Just in case you fall into the latter category, a case is not worthy of a full post on the CAFA Law Blog if the case deals with CAFA tangentially only.  If we deem the case is not "CAFA worthy" but one you may still want to know about, then it is relegated to a "not worthy" post.  In the immortal words of Captain Jack Sparrow, "Savvy?" 

H. LaSalle