Sevag_Chalian_v_CVS_Pharmacy_Inc._et_al, 2017 WL 1377589 (C.D. Cal. April 11, 2017)
In this wage and hour action, the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”) found removal was timely when diversity jurisdiction was not evident from the face of the plaintiff’s complaint, and when the defendant conducted its investigation to calculate that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.
Theresa_Black_et_al_v_Bayer_Corp et_al, 2017 WL 2592425 (E.D. Mo. June 15, 2017).
In this action, while remanding the claims to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri (the “State Court”), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the “District Court”) found that separate multi-plaintiff cases may not be aggregated to satisfy the 100 plaintiff requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act’s (“CAFA”) mass action provision.
Hamilton v Raleigh General Hospital LLC, 2017 WL 833050 (S.D.W.V. March 2, 2017).
In this action, a District Court in West Virginia granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand, reasoning that a complaint should be read as a whole to determine membership of a putative class for the purpose of determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds the CAFA minimum. Continue Reading
Belen_Torrez_v_Freedom_Mortgage_Corporation_et_al_, 2017 WL 2713400 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2017).
In this action, while denying Plaintiff Belen Torrez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand (the “Motion”), the United States District Court, Central District of California (“District Court”) found that although Plaintiff need not submit evidence to succeed on her Motion, the absence of such evidence in light of the generalized and indeterminate allegations in the complaint makes Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation’s (“Defendant”) assumptions based on those allegations reasonable.
Aaron Feao v UFP Riverside LLC, 2017 WL 2836207 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017).
In this action, while denying Plaintiff Aaron Feao’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand, the United States District Court, Central District of California (the “District Court”), found the ultimate inquiry is what amount is put ‘in controversy’ by Plaintiff’s complaint or other papers, not what the defendant will actually owe for the actual number of violations that occurred.
Carter v. Westlex Corp., 643 Fed. Appx. 371 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)
In this case, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ remand motion where plaintiffs submitted only conclusory allegations to contest defendants’ evidence that CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.
Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., 2017 WL 2684136 (9th Cir. June 21, 2017).
In this action, while reversing a district court’s order remanding the case to the state court, the Ninth Circuit found the amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, and is a concept distinct from “the amount of damages ultimately recoverable.” It further held that in determining the amount in controversy, the court accepts the allegations contained in the complaint as true and assumes the jury will return a verdict in the plaintiff’s favour on every claim. Continue Reading
Boyd v. NYCTL 1996-1 Trust, 2017 WL 2589388 (2d Cir. June 15, 2017).
In this summary order, while affirming the judgment of a district court dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, the Second Circuit found that there was a “reasonable probability” that the plaintiffs’ damages totalled at least $5 million, and the plaintiffs could have invoked CAFA jurisdiction in an earlier filed action. Continue Reading
Whitlock v. Bayer Corp., 2017 WL 564489 (E.D. Mo. 2017).
A district court in Missouri remanded the action back to state court for lack of diversity jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction, or jurisdiction under CAFA. In remanding the case the Court held that the defendants’ argument that several similar actions filed by the same attorneys against the same defendant should be aggregated to reach the required number of plaintiffs for a mass action under CAFA has been repeatedly rejected. In so holding, the District Court noted it is the plaintiffs, not defendants, who can request the court to try the cases jointly in order for it to constitute a mass action.