Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “CAFA”

4th Cir. Holds Defendant Must Present Sufficient Evidence to ‘Determine – Not Speculate’ as to CAFA’s Requirements

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a defendant invoking jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), must provide sufficient evidence to allow the court to determine – not speculate – that it was more likely than not that there were at least 100 class members and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. A copy of the opinion in Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion. Between July 2013 and March 2014, a consumer purchased two Samsung Galaxy S4 cell phones from the defendant…

8th Cir. Holds Removal Proper Where Absence of CAFA Jurisdiction Not ‘Established to a Legal Certainty’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the requirements for the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) were met and the matter was properly removed to federal court, where the plaintiffs could not “establish to a legal certainty” that their claims were for less than the requisite amount. A copy of the opinion in Dammann v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff insureds purchased automobile insurance from the insurer. The insureds’ policies required deductible payments of $100 for medical expense payments and $200 for economic loss payments.  Both policies provided…

9th Cir. Holds Consolidated ‘Bellweather Trial’ of Multiple Actions Did Not Meet CAFA’s ‘Mass Action’ Requirements

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed that consolidating multiple actions for pre-trial purposes and a bellweather-trial process is insufficient to justify the removal of those actions to federal court under the “mass action” provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit rejected several arguments the removing defendant made based on language contained in the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate.  The Court concluded that even though, as consolidated, the matters satisfied the numerosity requirement of a “mass action” under CAFA, the plaintiffs did not intend a joint trial for all of…

8th Cir. Holds ‘Citizen’ Does Not Equal ‘Resident’ Under CAFA’s ‘Local Controversy’ Exception

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that “citizen” is not synonymous with “resident” under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), such that the class action lawsuit at issue could not be remanded to state court under CAFA’s “local controversy” exception but rather should remain in federal court. A copy of the opinion in Tammy Hargett v. St. Bernard’s Hospital Inc, et al is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff was injured in a car accident and received treatment at a hospital, which required her to assign her Medicaid beneficiary rights to it. The hospital later contracted with…

11th Cir. Holds CAFA’s ‘Local Controversy’ Exception Does Not Preclude Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the federal Class Action Fairness Act’s (CAFA) local-controversy provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4), does not preclude a federal trial court from exercising federal-question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the federal trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the matter to state court following the defendants’ removal. A copy of the opinion in Blevins v. Aksut is available at:  Link to Opinion. The litigation involved a defendant doctor’s alleged performance of unnecessary heart procedures on the plaintiffs.  Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant doctor would…

11th Cir. Holds CAFA Jurisdiction Remains Even When Class Claims Are Dismissed Before Certification

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that federal courts that have original subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims under the federal Class Action Fairness Act retain that jurisdiction even when the class claims are dismissed before the class is certified.

8th Cir. Upholds Limited Award of Attorney’s Fees in ‘Coupon’ Class Action Settlement

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that plaintiff’s class counsel is allowed to submit proposals to the court regarding the method for calculation of reasonable attorney’s fees, but the court has the discretion to accept or reject such proposals and is not required to accept the plaintiff’s proposed method. In so ruling, the Court also held that the Class Action Fairness Act’s “coupon settlement” provisions at 28 U.S.C. § 1712 permit a district court to use a combination of percentage-of-coupons-used and lodestar methods to calculate reasonable attorney’s fees, but CAFA does not require that any portion…

9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of ‘Unlicensed Foreclosure Trustee’ Putative Class Action

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a class action that was removed to federal court under the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  In so ruling, the Court held that the case fit the narrow “local controversy exception” to CAFA’s grant of federal court jurisdiction. A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion. The trial court found it had jurisdiction over a class removed from state court under CAFA.  Then, the trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim.  However, the Appellate Court focused its analysis…

Ninth Circuit Holds CAFA Jurisdictional Amount Cannot Be Met By Aggregating Class, Non-Class Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that, in determining whether a putative class action satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the federal Class Action Fairness Act, amounts in controversy as to non-class and class claims may not be aggregated to meet CAFA’s diversity requirements. More specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that, “where a plaintiff files an action containing class claims as well as non-class claims, and the class claims do not meet the CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement while the non-class claims, standing alone, do not meet diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requirements, the amount involved in the non-class…

Ninth Circuit Holds State Court Order Expanding Class Size Triggers Removal Opportunity

The US. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s order remanding a class action to state court, holding that a second removal was proper and timely-filed 30 days after the state court entered an order that expanded the class definiton after the first removal. A copy of the opinion is available at:  http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/04/01/15-55176.pdf The plaintiff, an assistant store manager at a nationwide chain of discount retail stores, filed this action in state court in July of 2012, alleging that the employer supposedly violated the California Labor Code by denying 10-minute rest breaks to its employees. As…