Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “CAFA”

8th Cir. Affirms Remand of Putative Class Action Under CAFA on Lack of Amount in Controversy

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order remanding a putative class action suit to state court. In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit held that when a plaintiff contests the amount in controversy after removal, the party seeking to remove under the federal Class Action Fairness Act must establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. 

11th Cir. Holds CAFA Does Not Allow Appeals from Sua Sponte Remand Orders

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a defendant’s motion for leave to appeal in a case that was previously removed to federal court pursuant to the federal Class Action Fairness Act after the federal trial court sua sponte remanded the case back to state court.

9th Cir. Holds ‘Reasonably Possible’ Punitive Damages Award Supports CAFA Removal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a defendant that relies on potential punitive damages to satisfy the amount in controversy for removal under the federal Class Action Fairness Act meets that requirement if it shows that the proffered punitive/compensatory damages ratio is reasonably possible.

7th Cir. Holds Putative Class Plaintiff Had Standing On ‘Private’ Rights Claim, But Not ‘Public’ Rights Claim

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s order remanding a plaintiff’s claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because she lacked standing under Article III.

9th Cir. Holds Attorneys’ Fees May Be Included in CAFA ‘Amount in Controversy’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently vacated an order sua sponte remanding to state court a putative class action removed under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held: When a notice of removal plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a federal trial court may not remand the case back to state court without giving the defendants an opportunity to demonstrate that the jurisdictional requirements were satisfied; The amount in controversy may be based on reasonable assumptions tied to the allegations in the complaint; When a statute or contract…