Although the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) permits most significant class actions to be heard in federal court, the law requires district courts to remand so-called “local controversies” to state court. A “local controversy” is a class action …
Tag Archives: Class Action Fairness Act
Supreme Court Holds That Defendants Need Not Submit Evidence with a Notice of Removal Under the Class Action Fairness Act
To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the defendant must “file … a notice of removal … containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Under the Class …
Ninth Circuit Holds That State AGs and Prosecutors Can’t Seek Restitution On Behalf Of A Class That Already Settled Its Private Claims, But Can Seek Injunctive Relief and Penalties
A decade ago, California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and its closely related false advertising law (FAL) were the ideal plaintiff’s tools. Any person—even one with no connection to a particular asserted violation or harm—was able to bring a claim on …
En Banc Ninth Circuit Permits Removal Under CAFA of a Subdivided Mass Action
Over the past few years, a number of plaintiffs’ lawyers have attempted—with some success—to circumvent the “mass action” provisions in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), which allow defendants to remove to federal court certain cases raising …
Supreme Court May Clarify Procedures For Removal Under CAFA—If It Decides To Answer The Question Presented in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens
This morning I attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens. The issue presented in Dart Cherokee is whether a defendant who wishes to remove a case to federal court under the …
Class Action Fairness Act Roundup
Nine years after the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) was enacted, parties continue to fight over when federal jurisdiction over significant class and mass actions is proper.
In this post, we provide a rundown of some of the …
Class Action Can’t Be Remanded To State Court Just Because The Plaintiff Says It’s Uncertifiable
When was the last time you saw a plaintiffs’ lawyer seeking to represent a class argue that the class couldn’t be certified? Readers might wonder whether this is a trick question. In a sense, it is. In Hoffman v. Nutraceutical …
Supreme Court to Decide Whether All Evidence Supporting Removal Under the Class Action Fairness Act Must Be Submitted With The Notice of Removal
To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the defendant must “file … a notice of removal … containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Today, the Supreme …
Plaintiffs Can’t Evade Removal Under Class Action Fairness Act By Suing For Only Declaratory Relief
Over the years, the plaintiffs’ bar has used a wide variety of stratagems to try to prevent defendants from removing class actions to federal court. We’ve previously blogged about several of them. A recent Eleventh Circuit decision addresses yet …
En Banc Ninth Circuit Will Clarify When a Subdivided Mass Action Can Be Removed Under CAFA
Back in December, we blogged about two cases in the Ninth Circuit that were the latest skirmishes in the fight over whether plaintiffs can evade removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) by artificially subdividing their mass …
Supreme Court Holds that CAFA Doesn’t Let Defendants Remove State AG Actions to Federal Court
When state attorneys general file suits to seek monetary recoveries based on claimed injuries to private citizens, those lawsuits look like, walk like, and quack like class actions. In fact, in most of these so-called “parens patriae” cases, …
Book Review: The Class Action Fairness Act: Law and Strategy
In nearly nine years on the books, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) has generated a host of decisions interpreting its provisions. Because the state of the law on CAFA—and class actions in general—is in constant flux, practitioners …
Will the En Banc Ninth Circuit Clarify When a Subdivided Mass Action Can Be Removed Under CAFA?
We’ve blogged before about plaintiffs’ attempts to circumvent the “mass action” provisions in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), which allow defendants to remove to federal court certain cases raising “claims of 100 or more persons that are …
Supreme Court Hears Argument in Class Action Fairness Act Case, Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.
Today at the Supreme Court, all eyes, including mine, were on the oral arguments in the Town of Greece prayer case. But the second case—although it will certainly garner less attention—also is of great importance, especially to class-action practitioners. The …
The Seventh Circuit’s Unique Approach To Handling Rule 23(f) Petitions
We recently noted that the Ninth Circuit had granted a Rule 23(f) petition in Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co.—on the issue whether a named plaintiff can refuse an offer of judgment for full relief and persist in litigating a …
Can Plaintiffs Gerrymander Mass Actions to Avoid Federal Jurisdiction?
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) provides that defendants may remove certain mass actions—cases that are proposed to be tried jointly—so long as the aggregate amount at stake is at least $5 million and there are 100 or …
Supreme Court To Decide Whether Parens Patriae Suits Can Be Removed Under Class Action Fairness Act
We’ve blogged before about whether parens patriae lawsuits filed by state attorneys’ general to recover money on behalf of state citizens can be removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). (CAFA authorizes defendants to remove certain “mass actions” involving …
Fourth Circuit Nixes Requirement that All Defendants Physically Sign Notice of Removal To Federal Court
The Fourth Circuit recently weighed in on a technical question involving the process for removing a case against multiple defendants to federal court—namely, whether every defendant must actually sign the notice of removal. The Fourth Circuit concluded that “[w]e can …
Supreme Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Efforts To Avoid Federal Jurisdiction By “Stipulating” To Limit Class Recoveries To Under $5 Million
Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, that should make it a lot harder for plaintiffs and their counsel to avoid federal-court jurisdiction over significant class actions.
The …
Can Plaintiffs Evade The FDCPA’s Cap on Total Statutory Damages in a Class Action by Filing Multiple, Gerrymandered Class Actions?
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which regulates the conduct of debt collectors, authorizes plaintiffs suing over violations to recover statutory damages of up to $1,000. Because these amounts can rapidly add up to exorbitant numbers in a class …
Are Quasi-Class Action Suits By State AGs Removable Under CAFA (Or, For Securities Fraud Cases, Barred By SLUSA)?
A number of courts recently have weighed in on a question we’ve blogged before—whether lawsuits by state attorneys general seeking restitution on behalf of private citizens are subject to removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (pdf) …
What’s Next for the Class Action Plaintiffs’ Bar? Getting Deputized by State Attorneys General
Some academics and commentators have been reading the tea leaves in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (pdf) and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (pdf) as spelling doom for consumer and employment class actions. That’s overwrought; Dukes rejected an extremely adventuresome …
CAFA Showdown in the Supreme Court: Today’s Oral Argument In Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
This morning I attended the oral argument before the Supreme Court in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, the first major case in which the Court will address the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). …
Do Class Counsel Owe Fiduciary Duties to Absent Class Members Before Class Certification (and Should Defendants Care)?
According to an interesting student note that will soon be published in the Stanford Law Review, the answer to both questions is “yes.” Specifically, the would-be class counsel must “protect[] the substantive legal rights of putative class members . …
