Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Stoddard v. Oxy USA Inc., 2017 WL 3190354 (D. Kan. July 27, 2017).
In denying a plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Kansas held that the defendant proved by the preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction was proper after the plaintiff failed to present any evidence rebutting the defendant’s supporting affidavit. Continue Reading Failure to Rebut Evidence in Support of Motion to Remand Is Fatal
Rutledge_v_Healthport_Technologies, LLC, 2017 WL 728375 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)
To satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction, defendants may draw reasonable inferences from the complaint, but the defendants still need to be a concrete basis for their estimate. Continue Reading Defendants Can Draw Reasonable Inferences From a Complaint, But Their Estimated Amount in Controversy Cannot Be Pulled Out of “Thin Air”
Rosenbloom v. Jets America Inc., No 4:17-cv-01930 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2017).
In this action, while granting a plaintiff’s motion to remand, a district court in Missouri found that while punitive damages are included in the amount in controversy, the existence of the required amount must be supported by competent proof, and mere speculation and unsupported allegations are insufficient.
The plaintiff brought a putative class action in Twenty–First Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County, Missouri, under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”) because she was charged an extra $2.56 for premium toppings on a pizza deal advertised by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to disclose that she would be charged extra for premium toppings.
Lubinski v. Hub Group Trucking, Inc., 634 Fed. Appx. 587 (6th Cir. April 1, 2016).
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of current and former Illinois delivery drivers, alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and unjust enrichment of the defendant, Hub Group Trucking (“HGT”).
Continue Reading The “Admission” That Cannot Be Admitted Into Evidence
Carrigan v. Southeast Alabama Rural Health Associates, et al., 2017 WL 4018031 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 2017).
In this action, while granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, a district court in Alabama found that while the defendant may have no actual knowledge of the value of the claims, the defendant was not excused from the duty to show by fact, and not mere conclusory allegation, that federal jurisdiction exists.
Jaclyn_Waters_v__Ferrara_Candy_Co., 2017 WL 4562635 (8th Cir. Oct. 13, 2017).
In this action, while affirming the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri’s (the “District Court”) remand order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the “Eighth Circuit”) found the amount in controversy is not established by a preponderance of the evidence if a court must resort to conjecture, speculation, or star gazing.
Jaclyn_Waters_v_Ferra_Candy_Co., 2017 WL 2618271 (E.D. Mo. June 16, 2017).
In this action, while granting Plaintiff Jaclyn Waters; Motion to Remand, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (the “District Court”) found the plain language of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) implies the “plaintiff’s viewpoint test” was still proper in the class action context rather than the “either-viewpoint test”. Continue Reading The Eighth Circuit’s Longstanding Precedent Outweighs The Senate Report Endorsing ‘The Either Viewpoint Rule’
Pudlowski v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, 2016 WL 3902660 (8th Cir. July 19, 2016).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the “Eighth Circuit”) reversed an order remanding the action to the Missouri State Court (“State Court”), finding that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the “District Court”) erred by declining to consider defendants’ post removal affidavits. The Eighth Circuit reasoned that the notice of removal need not be accompanied by a submission of evidence, but rather, evidence can be submitted later in response to a request by the plaintiffs or the court.
Continue Reading Rams Allowed to Offer Evidence in Support of Removal in Overtime!
Hunter v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, 2017 WL 2634162 (11th Cir. June 14, 2017).
In this action, while affirming the order of a district court, the Eleventh Circuit found that primary defendants under the home state exception to CAFA are the defendants who are the real “targets” of the lawsuit, i.e., who have “substantial exposure” or would “incur most of the loss” if damages were awarded.
Continue Reading Real “Targets” are Primary Defendants Under CAFA’s Home State Exception
Forest Creek Townhomes, LLC, v. Carroll Property Management, LLC, et. al., 2017 WL 2557716 (6th Cir. June 13, 2017).
In this action, while affirming a district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to remand, the Sixth Circuit found that removal based on CAFA differs from removal based on diversity jurisdiction in important ways, and although CAFA removal is governed by the same thirty-day limits as general removal, no anti-removal presumption attends cases invoking CAFA. The Sixth Circuit thus found that it need not look to CAFA cases as removal in the instant case was based on diversity jurisdiction.
Continue Reading Removal Based On CAFA Differs From Removal Based On Diversity Jurisdiction
