Carter, et al., v. Westlex Corporation, et al., 2016 WL 1397648 (5th Cir. April 8, 2016).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order retaining jurisdiction over an action where the defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million jurisdictional threshold.
Graiser v. Visionworks of America, Inc., 2016 WL 1359048 (6th Cir. April 6, 2016).
The Sixth Circuit held that the 30-day removal period under CAFA does not begin if the plaintiff does not serve the defendant with an amended complaint, motion, other paper etc. from which a defendant can figure out that the amount-in-controversy exceeds CAFA’s jurisdictional threshold. The Sixth Circuit further held that if a defendant can determine from the documents served by the plaintiff that the amount-in-controversy could exceed $5 million, the defendant is not obligated to do so, unless the document is apparent.
Calmes v. Boca West Country Club, 2017 WL 4621112 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 16, 2017).
A district court in Florida dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) finding that the plaintiff did not satisfy his burden to establish that there were diverse class members or that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.
State of New Hampshire v Purdue Pharma, et al., 2018 WL 333824 (D.N.H. Jan. 9, 2018).
In this action a New Hampshire district court found that a parens patriae case was not sufficiently similar to a class action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 so as to justify removal under CAFA.
Carter_v_CIOX_Health_LLC, 2017 WL 2334886 (W.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017).
When denying a defendant’s request to remand a putative class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, a district court in New York educates the parties on the origins, purposes, and applicability of the local controversy exception and explains when the “no other action” element of the local controversy exception applies and why it exists. Continue Reading
Shelby v. Oak River Insurance Company, 2017 WL 6026672 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 5, 2017).
In this action, while denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Missouri found that the plaintiff’s tactics to avoid removal by being less than candid as to whether the case is a class action, influences the Court to not exercise its discretion to remand under the “interests of justice” exception.
Arnold v. OSF International Inc, et al, 2017 WL 2841697 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2017).
In this action, a California district court found that the amount sought by the plaintiff pursuant to her representative PAGA claim could not be aggregated with the amount sought pursuant to her class claims for the purpose of satisfying CAFA’s minimum amount in controversy requirement. Continue Reading
Bigsby v Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
A district court in New York found that because the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to establish that the required amount in controversy and number of putative plaintiffs, it had jurisdiction under CAFA—even though the plaintiffs’ federal claims would not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Johnson v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-01533-RLW (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2017).
In this action, while granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in Missouri found that the plaintiffs are permitted to avoid CAFA by dividing their plaintiffs into groups of less than 100 and filing an identical complaint for each group.
The plaintiffs brought an action in the Missouri state court against the defendants alleging injuries resulting from the plaintiffs’ use of Essure® permanent birth control system, a contraceptive device manufactured by the defendants.
Adams v. Grefer, 636 F. App’x 906 (5th Cir. 2016).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a remand order, finding that amending the complaint to substitute an heir for a deceased plaintiff did not commence a new action for the purposes of CAFA. Continue Reading