Kendrick v. Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., et al., 18-cv-00213 (N.D. Cal. 2018).

In granting plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in California found that an action may be deemed a state action under section 1332(d)(5) if there is such a close nexus between the State and the challenged action that

Cedar Lodge Plantation LLC et al. v. CSHV Fairway View II LLC ,768 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2014).

The Fifth Circuit reversed an order remanding a class action to state court, holding that the application of the local controversy exception depends on the pleadings at the time the class action is removed, not on an amended complaint filed after removal.

The plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of individuals and entities who were living or had lived, or who worked or owned property, in the immediate vicinity of an apartment complex. The original complaint alleged that the defendants, a group of apartment-owning and managing entities (the “Fairway Defendants”) exposed plaintiffs to underground sewage leaks that discharged higher than permitted levels of contaminants and hazardous substances.
Continue Reading Local Controversy Exception to CAFA Cannot Be Invoked On the Basis of Post-Removal Amendments

Myrick v. WellPoint, Inc., 764 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2014).

The Seventh Circuit held that a District Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand due to their failure to meet their burden of proof, was proper, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ contention that class citizenship discovery would have been too expensive.

Plaintiffs were former health insurance policy holders who filed a state court putative class action alleging violation of Illinois law in the cancellation of existing insurance policies by WellPoint, Inc. following its acquisition of RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. Defendants removed the action to the District Court under CAFA.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit- Lawyers Who Launch Class Actions Are Not In A Good Position To Complain About The Expenses They Entail

Whisenant v. Sheridan Production Co., LLC, 627 F. App’x. 706 (10th Cir. 2015)

This decision concerns the reversal of a denial of a motion to remand. Plaintiff brought a putative class action in Oklahoma state court against a natural gas production company, alleging that it failed to pay or underpaid royalties for natural gas wells. The defendant removed the action under CAFA.  The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the District Court denied. 
Continue Reading Interest Payments Tied Solely To Delay In Paying Amounts In Controversy Insufficient To Establish CAFA Jurisdiction

Clay v. Chobani LLC, 2015 WL 4743891 (S.D. Cal. Aug.10, 2015).

In this action, a District Court declined to remand the action to state court finding that the defendants had satisfied their burden of proof by showing a reasonable chain of logic based on the allegations of the complaint and sufficient evidence to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.

The plaintiff, purchaser of Chobani yogurt for personal consumption, brought a putative class action in California Superior Court on behalf of a class of all California retail purchasers of the Chobani Products alleging violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and negligent misrepresentation.Continue Reading District Court Holds That Amount In Controversy Can Be Proven By A Reasonable Chain Of Logic Flowing From The Allegations Of The Complaint

Windom v. BorgWarner, Inc., 2014 WL 10290888 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 17, 2014).

In an action brought by clients against their former attorneys, the district court found that, in determining the amount in controversy in a mass action, the punitive damages claims of the putative class cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional requirement and that, ultimately, the propriety of remand comes down to accurately doing the math.

Patsy Windom and 287 other plaintiffs brought a state court action claiming that they were wronged by a group of attorneys in a PCB contamination settlement gone awry.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant attorneys’ secret deals, obfuscation, and misrepresentations enriched the defendants and deprived the plaintiffs of settlement funds.Continue Reading When the Amount in Controversy is Disputed, the Propriety of Remand Comes Down to Math

Addison v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2015 WL 461958 (D. Mass. Feb. 4, 2015)

A district court in Massachusetts remanded a case to state court finding that a delay in filing a notice of removal unjustifiable when the complaint, the defendants’ prior filings, and underlying circumstances provided defendants with sufficient grounds to timely ascertain

Grozco v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 2015 WL 411209 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015).

A district court in California denied a motion to remand, finding that the defendant had sufficiently established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million.

The plaintiff class, comprising of current and former non-exempt hourly workers