Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Downing v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 2014 WL 1316776 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2014).
In an action filed by a group on behalf of all persons and entities that provided or paid for common benefit services or expenses for the defendant in prior Multi-District Litigation, the District Court took judicial notice that the MDL consisted of over 5,000 plaintiffs, and therefore denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under CAFA.…
Rainbow Gun Club, Inc. v. Denbury Resources, Inc., 2014 WL 869504 (W.D. La. March 5, 2014).
In this action, the District Court affirmed a remand order finding that CAFA’s local “single event exception” can include mass actions involving manifestation of multiple events caused by a significant occurrence.…
Continue Reading Single Event Exception Includes Multiple Events Caused by a Significant Occurance
Sanchez v. Res-Care, Inc., 2014 WL 807997 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014).
In this action, the District Court remanded the case to the state court finding that the defendant failed to show by preponderance of evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million threshold.…
Continue Reading Defendants Must Demonstrate Factual Basis for Amount-in-Controversy Claims
McDaniel v. Fifth Third Bank, 2014 WL 805508 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2014).
In an action arising out of fraud and misrepresentation, the district court refused to retain subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA finding that it could not consider a facially deficient claim for the purpose of ascertaining the amount-in-controversy.…
Clements v. DirecTV, LLC, 2014 WL 794287 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 27, 2014).
In this action, the District Court denied a motion for remand and retained jurisdiction, finding that the defendant had satisfied its burden to establish that the amount-in-controversy exceeded the $5 million threshold required by CAFA.…
Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2014 WL 905419 (S.D. Fla. March 7, 2014).
A District Court in Florida dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint finding that the general rule for CAFA jurisdiction that the amount-in-controversy is determined at the time a complaint is filed does not apply to cases where the plaintiff doesn’t have standing to pursue those claims in the first instance.…
Lee v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2013 WL 6627755 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013).
In this action, the District Court remanded the case finding that when the initial complaint on its face shows enough characteristics sufficient for a federal jurisdiction, the defendant must remove it within 30-days after filing of that complaint.…
Miss. ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 2014 WL 113485 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014).
The United States Supreme Court remanded an action holding that the mass action provision of CAFA did not apply because the term “plaintiffs” refers to actual named parties as opposed to unnamed real parties in interest.…
Continue Reading Only Actual Named Parties Qualify As Plaintiffs
Trahan v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 116606 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014).
A District Court while denying a motion to remand opined that the preponderance of the evidence standard applied, and held that the legal certainty standard is not applicable in actions involving absent class members.
The plaintiff brought an action on behalf of Business Banking Officers, including trainees for the Business Banking position, alleging that the defendant failed to reclassify such employees as non-exempt employees even after Duran v. U.S. National Bank Association, Alameda Co. Sup.Ct. Case No.2001–035537, held that such employees had been misclassified as exempt. The plaintiff alleged that because of this misclassification, the putative class was not paid overtime, and rest and meal breaks.…
Continue Reading Standard Fire Versus Lowdermilk – The Debate Continues!
Underwood v. Menfre, 2014 WL 67644 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2014).
Aggrieved by her inability to write letters to her husband with sensitive, personal information, and send him inter alia photographs, drawings, and newspaper clippings, the plaintiff, whose husband was an inmate at the Flagler County Jail, Florida, brought an action challenging two policies of the Jail’s Sheriff regarding incoming and outgoing mails. While one policy required all incoming mail to Jail inmates, except legal or privileged mail, to be in postcard form, another policy prohibited Jail inmates from sending outgoing letters that exceeded two sheets of paper and all outgoing mail that contained obscene language. The plaintiff alleged that these policies violated her First Amendment free speech rights to communicate in a complete and meaningful way with her inmate husband.…
Continue Reading Jail Term Not a Bar For Jail Inmate’s Ability to Communicate
