Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Aparicio v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 2014 WL 545795 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2014).
A District Court in California remanded the case to the state court finding that the plaintiff relied on the defendant’s data to reach her settlement demand for $16 million; whereas the defendant refuted that it ever produced such a…
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.…
Main v. Dolgen California, LLC, 13-01637, 2013 WL 5799019 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013).
In this case, a California district court remanded a putative class action after finding that plaintiffs’ individual recoveries under the California Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) could not be aggregated with civil penalties under the Act that inure to the benefit of the State of California.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District”) reconsidered its remand order in light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (2013). In originally remanding the case, the court relied on the “legal certainty” test promulgated by Lowdermilk v. United States Bank National Association, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the Rodriguez court overruled Lowdermilk and held that a defendant removing an action under CAFA need only establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, the court re-evaluated whether the removing defendants satisfied the amount in controversy requirement under CAFA.…
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.…
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
Juvera v. Salcido, 2013 WL 6628039 (D. Ariz. Dec. 17, 2013)
A District Court in Arizona granted approval to a $157,000 settlement holding that the Settlement Agreement reflected a fair and reasonable resolution of wage issues in the action.
Current and former cashiers who were employed with the defendants brought this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona’s minimum wage laws. Their grouse stemmed from the cashiers having to reimburse the defendants when the cash drawer or till did not add up correctly; and from the employees having to repay the defendants for the cost of replacement uniforms, as well as employee name and security tags. According to the plaintiffs, these policies reduced their wages below the minimum wage required by the FLSA and Arizona law. The Parties ultimately settled their disputes, and in this order, the District Court granted the parties’ joint motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement.…
Continue Reading Approved Settlement of Federal and State Wage Claims Did Not Implicate CAFA
Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, 2013 WL 4516757 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013).
The Ninth Circuit’s decision that Lowdermilk’s imposition of the legal certainty standard was clearly irreconcilable with Standard Fire is a boon to defendants seeking to remove cases to federal court under CAFA. (Editor’s Note: See the CAFA Law …
Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2013 WL 1791920 (E.D.Cal. April 26, 2013).
As amended by CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) vests district courts with original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, the aggregate number of proposed plaintiffs is 100 or greater, and any member of the…
Deaver v. BBVA Compass Consulting & Benefits, Inc., 2013 WL 2156280 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2013).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida determined whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) rendered the District Court’s earlier decision in Lowdermilk…
