The CAFA Law Blog is seeking guest commentary from readers regarding the law review article authored by CAFA Law Blog Editors Hunter Twiford, Anthony Rollo and John Rouse first previewed on the CAFA Law Blog (See CAFA Law Blog post on the article dated May 5, 2006). The article, scheduled for publication in the Spring 2006 edition of the Mississippi College Law Review, is 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,” and is available prior to publication in the Mississippi College Law Review to CAFA Law Blog readers through the blog.

The premise: the Class Action Fairness Act’s text, purposes, and legislative history, correctly interpreted, combine to create a presumption in favor of finding that federal jurisdiction exists in interstate class actions under the Minimal Diversity standard, and that the burden of proof is on the party opposing federal jurisdiction, despite the contrary decisions of some federal courts which have addressed the burden of proof question, but have not considered the clear mandates of Section 2 of CAFA as part of their analysis. So, to accommodate the requests of some CAFA Law Blog readers for another reference to the article, here you go.