Adams v. Toys ‘R’ Us, 2015 WL 395214 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015).

A district court in California denied remand finding that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to assume an amount-in-controversy in excess of the jurisdictional minimum under CAFA.

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of herself and at least 2000

Estate of Hanna, et al. v. Agape Senior, LLC, et al.,  2015 WL 247906 (D.S.C. Jan. 20, 2015).

A district court in South Carolina applied CAFA’s local controversy exception in remanding a case to state court, holding that the plaintiff class sought “significant relief” from local defendants, whose actions formed a “significant basis”

Levanoff, et al. v. SoCal Wings LLC, et al., 2015 WL 248338 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015).

In Levanoff, a district court in California remanded the case to state court and held that a  notice of removal was untimely filed where the removing defendant could have ascertained the amount in controversy from the

Lowell v. Summer Bay Mgmt., L.C., 2014 WL 1092187 (E.D. Tenn. March 17, 2014).

In an action, a Tennessee District Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, where he refused to dismiss a case sua sponte on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.  The magistrate judge was of the view that when a case is referred to a magistrate by district court, he is bound to the extent of referral, which in this case was class certification; as a result, dismissing the case sua sponte would mean that he would be exceeding his jurisdiction.


Continue Reading

Kanowitz v. Broadridge Fin. Solutions, Inc., 2014 WL 1338370 (E.D.N.Y. March 31, 2014).

A district court in New York granted in part and denied in part a defendant’s motion to stay discovery while a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under CAFA was pending.  The District Court found that although the putative class satisfied the local controversy and the home state exceptions under CAFA, defendant should produce unredacted information on the putative class members’ to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to verify Plaintiffs’ state citizenship, which had been withheld at the initial stage of the litigation.


Continue Reading

Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2014 WL 1274119 (S.D. Fla. March 27, 2014).

A district court in Florida dismissed this action finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction after denial of a motion for class certification.  The court explained that the denial of certification meant that the plaintiff’s action was, from the beginning, inappropriate for class treatment, and hence, it could not exercise jurisdiction under CAFA.


Continue Reading

Henry v. Warner Music Group Corp., 2014 WL 1224575 (S.D.N.Y. March 24, 2014).

In an action filed by an interns seeking unpaid wages, the District Court retained jurisdiction over the case finding, among many things, that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that more than two-thirds of the putuative class members were citizens of New York.  The District Court ruled that the local controversy or the home state exceptions were not established to divest it of subject matter jurisdiction over the case and the other requirements for CAFA jurisdiction were met.


Continue Reading