Reiss, John B., et al., Your Business in Court—2006, 62 Food & Drug L.J. 305 (2007).
In its annual review of “Your Business in Court,” the Food and Drug Law Journal authors took note of three CAFA-related matters.
It is simple as Do, Re, Mi; A,B,C; 1, 2, 3, Baby, you and me.
After noting that CAFA is a positive development for pharmaceutical and medical device manufactures, they first looked at the impact of CAFA on federal court resources as tracked by the Federal Judicial Center. The Center’s interim report stated that, since CAFA’s enactment, both the number of class actions filed in federal court and class action “activity based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction” have increased; however, the number of personal injury class actions has not increased. (Editors’ Note: Our loyal readers already know that we analyzed the Federal Judicial Center’s interim report in our post dated September 18, 2006).
Next, the authors turned to a matter of interest to many a CAFA blog fan, the burden of proving exceptions to CAFA. The authors observed that the majority of courts require plaintiffs challenging federal jurisdiction to prove an exception to CAFA, citing opinions from the 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits. (Editors’ Note: Again, the brilliant fans of the CAFA Law Blog know we have covered the entire water front on jurisdictional burden of proof. See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Frazier from the 5th Circuit posted on August 17, 2006 and the CAFA Law Blog analyses of Evans from the 11th Circuit posted on May 25, 2006 and May 26, 2006. Also, see the CAFA Law Blog analysis of the Hart case from the 7th Circuit posted on August 21, 2006. If you are still looking for reading material, see the CAFA Law Blog analysis of the Lowdermilk case from th 9th Circuit posted on July 30, 2007. Also, if you really want to go to the head of the class on jurisdictional burden of proof, see the law review article by CAFA Law Blog Editors Hunter Twiford, Anthony Rollo and John Rouse entitled “CAFA’s New ‘Minimal Diversity’ Standard For Interstate Class Actions Creates A Presumption That Jurisdiction Exists, With The Burden Of Proof Assigned To The Party Opposing Jurisdiction.” You will really amaze your friends.)
Finally, the article alluded to the possible expansion of CAFA, pointing to In re Zyprexia Prods. Liab. Litig., 238 F.R.D. 539 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006), in which the court suggested that CAFA should be applied to national multi-district litigation.