Uncategorized

Subscribe to Uncategorized via RSS

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.Continue Reading Court Can Take Judicial Notice of Prior Multi District Litigation to Find Number of Plaintiffs Satisfied for CAFA Jurisdiction

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.Continue Reading Plaintiff’s Facially Deficient Claims Cannot Be Considered for Purposes of the CAFA Amount in Controversy Determination

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.Continue Reading Plaintiffs Must Meet Their Burden to Rebut Defendants’ Showing Re: Amount-in-Controversy

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.Continue Reading Plaintiff Cannot Maintain CAFA Jurisdiction Where Amount Stated In Controversy Isn’t Really in Controversy

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