Calmes v. Boca West Country Club, 2017 WL 4621112 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 16, 2017).

A district court in Florida dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) finding that the plaintiff did not satisfy his burden to establish that there were diverse class members or that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.


Continue Reading

Rainero v. Archon Corporation, 2016 WL 7384031 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016).

The Ninth Circuit held it lacked federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1331 because the plaintiff did not assert a federal claim and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(1)(A), did not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claim.

The Ninth Circuit also held that CAFA does not allow a district court to assert diversity jurisdiction over a class action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because the exception in 29 U.S.C.§ 1332(d)(9)(C) states that § 1332(d)(2) shall not apply to any class action that solely involves a claim that relates to the rights, duties, and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any security.


Continue Reading

Watson v. American National Property and Casualty Co, 2015 WL 5007967 (W.D. Penn. Aug. 20, 2015)

The Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for remand, finding that the defendant met the legal certainty standard supporting federal jurisdiction in an action alleging that the defendant improperly rejected underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage for people that had been in accidents and made UIM coverage claims due to a UIM waiver form not complying with Pennsylvania law.


Continue Reading

Controulis v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 2013 WL 6482970 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013).

The plaintiff, employed as a bottler by the defendant, Anheuser-Busch, LLC, brought an action alleging that the defendant violated California law by including the value of free beer in the regular rate of pay.

The terms of the plaintiff’s employment were governed by

Woods v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2014 WL 360185 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014).

A District Court in California remanded an action for failure to establish the amount in controversy holding that a defendant seeking removal of a putative class action must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeded the

Greco v. Jones, 2014 WL 177410 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2014).

In this case, the plaintiffs, 237 ticket holders to Super Bowl XLV, brought an action alleging that they were denied, relocated, delayed seating, and/or, redirected to seats with obstructed views.  The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement and concealment, negligent misrepresentation,

Otay Hydraulics, Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 1773955 (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2013).

In this matter, the plaintiff brought an action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the defendant breached contracts with its California customers by charging unauthorized fuel surcharges and excessive fees.

The defendants removed the action to the

Edward S. Sledge, IV & Christopher S. Randolph, Jr., Setting the Edges: Defending Against Plaintiff End Runs Around CAFA, 80 Def. Couns. J. 178 (April 2013).

In this article, Edward S. Sledge, IV, a shareholder at Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. in Birmingham, Alabama, discusses the abusive practice that has allowed plaintiffs’ attorneys to