While these cases are close to being classified as "Not Worthy" for prime time posts, we thought we would give you something a little more substantive than just a listing of these cases and tell you to read them if you are bored.  So, here are 4 case notes of almost not worthy of prime time analysis. 

Continue Reading A Couple of Quick Case Notes

No, we’re not channeling the ghosts of girlfriends-past. Just dropping a friendly reminder that the CAFA Law Blog is a fully-interactive gizmo (thingamajig for you techies). Despite what you may think, we don’t sit on high waiting to pounce on any goofball who dares speak CAFA to us. In reality, we’re pretty lonely and just want someone to talk to. Preferably about CAFA, but we’ll take what we can get.   So feel free to leave us a comment or question on our posts through the “Post A Comment/Question” buttons at the bottom of each post. Or, if you’ve got lots to say or want to submit a guest post to the CAFA Law Blog, send us an email by clicking on the “Contact Us” bar at the top of the page.

Until then… check this out.

Komeshak v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 2008 WL 3875265

Do YOU know when CAFA was enacted? And I mean the Month (hint: think Valentine’s[1]), Day (hint: think voting age[2]) and Year (hint: think Hurricane Katrina[3]) it was enacted…do you know? C’mon, venture a guess. One tiny, little guess. A true CAFA-er would know! If you still don’t know and haven’t cheated by looking at the footnotes, read on and ye shall find out. It’s kind of an important detail. 

Continue Reading My Neck, My Back…Not Even A Close Call, Take That!

Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co.,  No. 09-55138, 09-55145, 09-55147, 09-55148, 09-55153, 09-55156, 09-55160, 2009 WL 826404 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2009). 

In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirms a remand order sending the claims of 680 named plaintiffs back to state court because the claims did not meet CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements as a “mass action.” 

Continue Reading When is a Mass not a Mass? When it is Seven State Court Actions, Each with Less than 100 plaintiffs.

Landsman & Funk, P.C. v. Skinder-Strauss Associates, 2009 WL 1916316 (D.N.J. June 20, 2009)

This incredibly confusing case started with an unsolicited advertisement faxed from a New Jersey partnership, Skinder-Strauss Associates (“Skinder”) to a New York law firm, Landsman & Funk, P.C. (“Funk”). (Yeah, it should really be “Landsman,” but geez, we need material here.) Funk sued Skinder in New Jersey federal court for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), and Skinder moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Continue Reading Get the Funk Out!

College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. Triple S Management Inc., 2009 WL 1076308 (D.Puerto Rico).

The plaintiffs in this case are either very smart or enjoy Puerto Rican rum too much. Lord knows there is plenty of Puerto Rican rum to choose from.

Continue Reading Dentists in Puerto Rico Bite Off More Than They Can Chew!

CAFA law blog fans are environmentally friendly and always remember to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle – just read some of our posts…certainly someone will come up with new ideas soon. You can only reference wet T-shirt contests, songs from the ‘70s, and show tunes so often, but we digress.

Now you can find out more information on how to put one of the 3 R’s to use at American Conference Institutes’ 3rd Annual Forum on Reducing Legal Costs. This essential cross-industry benchmarking forum gathers together more than 35 senior corporate counsel and legal sourcing managers, as well as law firms who are pioneers in the alternative fee world, to guide those in attendance on the complexities of keeping legal department costs in check.

When: November 19-20, 2009

Where: Union League; Philadelphia, PA

Marine v. Interstate Distrib. Co., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1066303 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 20, 2009) (NO. C 08-5414 SI)

Sorry, Interstate Distributor Company’s (IDC) California truck drivers, you were forced to wait and not afforded your mandatory rest periods or regular meals. The Northern District Court of California ruled that defendant’s only chance to remove based on CAFA was during its first attempt to remove this case through diversity jurisdiction.

After initial removal, the case was remanded back to state court for lack of diversity jurisdiction. However, the defendant was hungry and tried to go in for seconds, a second chance at removal, that is. The Northern District was not swayed by the defendant’s argument that CAFA jurisdiction was not apparent from the face of the complaint during the first removal.

Continue Reading Hungry? Why wait? Take a Break and Take a Bite!

In re Hp Inkjet Printer Litigation, No. 05-3580 (N.D. CA 02/05/09)

Hewlett Packard’s Inkjet printer’s ink cartridges may run out too quickly, but its jurisdiction in federal court does not. 

Continue Reading Replace Magenta Cartridge? I Don’t Even Use Magenta: HP Printers Keep Jamming in Federal Court

Well not exactly, but close. The CAFA Law Blog has teamed up as a media partner with American Conference Institute who is presenting the 2nd Annual Forum on Defending and Managing Automotive Product Liability Litigation. Let’s face it, the surge of auto sales will almost certainly lead to a surge in auto product liability suits. Be on the forefront by attending the ACI conference and learn how to:

·                    Manage the exorbitant cost of defending cases and evaluate which cases to settle and which to prepare for trial

·                    Defend against novel claims arising from the new NHTSA roof crush standard

·                    Ensure that the burdens of e-discovery do not undermine the defense’s case on the merits

·                    Manage complex litigation while operating with a smaller legal department and under tighter budget constraints

When: November 19-20, 2009

Where: Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel, Chicago, IL

Sign up: www.americanconference.com/automotive