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
Romano v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., No. 16-5760 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017).
In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in New York found that amending a complaint after removal to eliminate class allegations does not deprive a court of jurisdiction under CAFA.
The plaintiffs brought a putative class action in Nassau County Supreme Court on behalf of current and former residents and property owners of Bethpage, New York, asserting various state law causes of action against the defendants, Northrop Grumman Corporation and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (collectively “Northrop”), for injuries and damages allegedly suffered as a result of the release of hazardous substances from its former site, formerly known as the Grumman-Aerospace-Bethpage Facility Site (“the Site”), as well as land donated by Grumman Corporation to the Town of Oyster Bay and currently known as Bethpage Community Park (the “Park”).
Gonzalez v. Banco Santander, et al., 2017 WL 5957735 (D.P.R. Dec. 1, 2017).
In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in Puerto Rico found that the “local controversy” exception to CAFA does not apply if the defendants engaged in conduct that could be alleged to have injured consumers throughout the country, or broadly throughout several states, even if it was filed as a single-state class action.
Bell v. Gateway Energy Services Corporation et al., 2017 WL 5956887 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017).
In this action, while granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court in New York found that in absence of direct business relationship, customers cannot arraign a corporation as a defendant.
Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., 2016 WL 1638045 (1st Cir. April 26, 2016)
Lisa C. Pazol, Maria C. Newman, Lisa Russ and Audrey J. Bennet (“Plaintiffs”) were registrants of an extreme obstacle course that was organized by Tough Mudder Incorporated, Tough Mudder, LLC and BK Bridge Events, LLC (“Defendants”). Defendants are business entities that organized physically challenging obstacle courses in various locations in the United States. Plaintiffs registered to participate in one of those events called the “Mudderella”, which was scheduled to take place on September 6, 2014, in Haverhill, Massachusetts. Continue Reading
Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2018 WL 330034 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2018).
In this action, the Fifth Circuit found that permitting removal over the suit as a whole, inclusive of the pre-CAFA claims, was consistent with congressional intent.
Loehn v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., 2016 WL 722002 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2016).
Here, the Eastern District of Louisiana denied remand finding that the post-removal event—plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of their class claims—did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, which was properly established at the time of removal under CAFA.
Cowan v. Devon Energy Corporation et al., No. 6:16-cv-00510-SPS (E.D. Ok. Nov. 8, 2017).
In this action, while granting the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Oklahoma found that in determining the six enumerated factors for the application of the discretionary exception, a ‘neutral’ factor should not weigh against remand.
The plaintiff, an oil and gas well owner, brought a putative class action in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma alleging that the defendants, operator of the well, violated Oklahoma statute that required payment of interest on delayed payment of revenue from oil and gas production. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants routinely delayed payment of production proceeds and denied owners the interest payments to which they were entitled as part of an overarching scheme to avoid its obligations under the Oklahoma Law.