The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the total amount of money received from a challenged practice can be used to satisfy the federal Class Action Fairness Act’s jurisdictional requirement of $5 million in controversy.
Posts tagged as “Eighth Circuit”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently vacated a trial court’s judgment entered after trial in favor of the named plaintiff and a class of consumers for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act due to lack of Article III standing.
In a repurchase and indemnification action involving mortgage loan liabilities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently upheld a trial court’s $5.4 million compensatory damages judgment and over $14 million attorney fee award in favor of the plaintiff, while overturning the trial court’s award of post-judgment interest.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently vacated a trial court’s order remanding a defendant's removal to federal court of a putative class action under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit held that CAFA did not contain a presumption that class action cases should be remanded to state court, and the trial court failed to properly consider a declaration provided by the defendant in support of the request for removal under CAFA.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit recently held that, when plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to a final agency action, the right of action accrues, and the limitations period begins to run upon publication of the regulation.
8th Cir. Distinguishes ‘Article III’ and ‘Statutory’ Standing in FDCPA ‘Third Party Disclosure’ Case
8th Cir. Distinguishes ‘Article III’ and ‘Statutory’ Standing in FDCPA ‘Third Party Disclosure’ Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the judgment of a trial court and held that non-consumers cannot bring a claim under Section 1692c(b) of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the language of a future advances clause entitled the foreclosing mortgagee to the surplus proceeds of a condominium sale where there was an outstanding balance owed to same mortgagee on separate business loans extended to a different co-mortgagor.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that various federal Fair Credit Reporting Act claims should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.
Following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the rulings of multiple trial courts to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that an automated marketing system that sends promotional text messages to phone numbers randomly selected from a database of customers' information is not an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of a consumer for claims of alleged violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, finding that the consumer lacked Article III standing to bring his claim in federal court as the consumer failed to allege or later show a concrete injury in fact.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's denial of class certification, concluding that (1) the plaintiffs' nationwide class action complaint alleged violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, and thus rebuttal evidence was permitted; (2) the defendant company had evidence challenging the extent to which each plaintiff allegedly relied on the alleged omissions; and (3) individualized findings on reliance were therefore required, which would likely lead to multiple mini-trials within the class action.