In Brinkley v Monterey Financial Services Inc., the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s remand order, and held that a plaintiff cannot remand an otherwise valid CAFA case to state court when only a portion of the class meets the two-thirds citizenship requirement.  Continue Reading Absent Facts Regarding The Size Of The Entire Class, The Court Cannot Determine Whether Two-Thirds Of All Class Members Are In-State Citizens

Nichols v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, No 5:16-cv-01073-M (W.D. Ok. Sept. 13, 2017).

In this action, a district court in Oklahoma denied the plaintiff’s motion to abstain under the home-state mandatory abstention exception to CAFA finding that the plaintiff cannot rely solely on the allegations in his class action petition to establish that two-thirds or more of the members of the proposed class are citizens of Oklahoma, but must make some minimal evidentiary showing of the citizenship of the proposed class.

The plaintiff brought a putative class action for breach of lease, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, deceit and constructive trust against the defendants in the state court of Beaver County, Oklahoma. The class claims related to royalty payments for gas and its constituents.

Continue Reading Plaintiff Must Present Persuasive Substantive Evidence To Establish The Citizenship Of The Class Members

Castillo v. Western Range Ass’n, 2017 WL 1364584 (D. Nev. April 13, 2017).

In dismissing a wage-and-hour class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that the CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement cannot be aggregated when each plaintiff’s claims are wholly unrelated to the other and when the defendants are not jointly liable.

Continue Reading CAFA’s Amount in Controversy Could Not be Aggregated When Each Plaintiff’s Claims Are Wholly Unrelated to the Claims of the Other and When the Defendants Are Not Jointly Liable

Scott v. Credico (USA) LLC, et al., 2017 WL 4210994 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017).

In this case, while remanding a case to the state court, a district court in California found that gross wages, paid and unpaid, should not be used in the amount in controversy calculation when the plaintiff seeks recovery of only unpaid wages.

Continue Reading Only Disputed Sums Of Money Is Counted In Assessing Amount In Controversy

Gibson v. Continental Resources, Inc. Case No. 5:15-cv-00611-M, (W.D. Okla. Oct. 8, 2015).

This order concerned a motion to remand a case to state court based on the plaintiff’s assertions that the defendant had not filed a sufficient removal notice.

The plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that the defendant failed to make proper payments owed to her and the class members on royalty interests in oil wells. The defendant removed this case to federal court alleging jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1452. In its notice of removal, defendant stated that “hundreds” of royalty owners have out-of-state addresses, as its basis for establishing diversity of citizenship. Further, the defendant contended that the number of class members exceeded 100 and the alleged damages were in excess of $10 million. Continue Reading Allegations that Many Class Members Reside Out of State Satisfies Requirement for “Short and Plain Statement” in Notice of Removal

Jessica Casey, et al., v. Roger Denton, et al., 2017 WL 3461363 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2017).

In this action, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in Illinois found that CAFA is not the exclusive means for establishing subject matter jurisdiction over class actions, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 original jurisdiction, and § 1332 CAFA jurisdiction, are two alternative bases for removal.

Continue Reading CAFA Is Not The Exclusive Means For Establishing Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Class Actions

Loretta_Little_et_al_v_Pfizer_Inc_et_al., 2017 WL 3412300 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2017).

In this action involving claims from the plaintiffs in several lawsuits, the United States District Court, Northern District of California (the “District Court”), while remanding the cases to state court, found the plaintiffs have the ability to avoid jurisdiction by filing separate complaints naming less than 100 plaintiffs and by not moving for or otherwise proposing joint trial in the state court. The District Court further held a proposal for a joint trial made by one plaintiff cannot in effect bind another plaintiff if he or she has not made a proposal for a joint trial.

Continue Reading A Mass Action Must Involve Monetary Claims Brought By 100 Or More Persons Who ‘Propose To Try Those Claims Jointly’ As Named Plaintiffs

Marciela_Reyes_v_Carehouse_Healthcare_Center_LLC_et_al., 2017 WL 2869499 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017).

In this action, while denying Plaintiff Maricela Reyes’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand, the United States District Court, Central District of California (the “District Court”), held a motion to remand challenging subject matter jurisdiction can be filed at any time, and such motions are not subject to the thirty-day time limit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Continue Reading Subject Matter Jurisdiction Can Be Challenged At Any Time And It Is Not Subject To The Thirty-Day Time Limit Required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

Jordan v Bayer Corporation, 2017 WL 1909059 (E.D. Mo. May 10, 2017).

In granting plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a Missouri District Court held that the Class Action Fairness Act did not apply where state court plaintiffs with common claims against a common defendant filed separate cases with fewer than 100 plaintiffs each to avoid federal jurisdiction under CAFA, where there was nothing in any case’s record that the plaintiffs proposed to try their separate cases jointly.

Continue Reading Plaintiffs Can Avoid Mass Action Jurisdiction Under CAFA By Artificially Splitting Cases Into Groups of Fewer Than 100 Plaintiffs

McMullen v. Synchrony Bank, 128 F.Supp.3d 180 (D.C. 2015)

In this action, the District Court declined to remand the case back to the superior court based on the local controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). The District Court found that after limited discovery regarding the citizenship of the putative class members, it became apparent that at best, sixty percent of the putative class members were citizens of the District of Columbia, thus falling below the two-thirds requirement mandated by the local controversy exception under CAFA.

Valerie McMullen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against Wayne Bullen, Karim Steward, Bullen Wellness, Washington Chiropractic, One World Fitness, Synchrony Bank (“Synchrony”) and JP Morgan Chase (“Chase”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based on their alleged participation in a fraudulent scheme involving lines of healthcare-related credit. Continue Reading Plaintiff’s Failure To Establish Class’s Citizenship Proves Fatal To Utilizing The Local Controversy Exception