Litigating in the New Class Action World: An Update on the Evolving Case Law Under the Class Action Fairness Act,” Class Action Litigation Report, Vol. 6, No.18, published by BNA, Inc., and authored by Peter Danelo, Leonard Feldman, Malaika Eaton and Aneelah Azfali.
This article, whcih appeared in BNA’s Class Action Litigation Report, summarizes recent decisions on two fronts: first, which party bears the burden of proof in remand battles under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, and second, when an action “commences” under CAFA. Based on the first wave of cases addressing these issues, the BNA reports that courts are leaning toward placing the burden of proof in remand battles on the plaintiffs who oppose CAFA-based removals to federal court. The article also identifies several emerging trends: virtually universal judicial rejection of the defense argument that filing a notice of removal commences an action in order to trigger CAFA; adding a new defendant normally allows removal; adding a new plaintiff prompted at least one court to allow CAFA removal; and adding truly new claims or reviving “a fully adjudicated complaint” also “seems to permit removal.”

The editors of the CAFA Law Blog wish to thank BNA for allowing us to make this article available online to our readers. Reproduced with permission from Class Action Litigation Report, Vol. 6, No. 18, pp. 677-684 (Sept. 23, 2005). Copyright 2005 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)