Tag Archives: CAFA

District Court May Not Look Behind a State Court’s Application of Its Own Procedural Law on Motion to Remand Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Holds Fifth Circuit

In Turner v. GoAuto Insurance, No. 22-30103 (5th Cir. May 2, 2022), the Fifth Circuit holds that a district court properly remanded a class action to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 when it accepted an amended complaint, filed two days before the removal petition, as the operative complaint that limited the class solelyContinue reading “District Court May Not Look Behind a State Court’s Application of Its Own Procedural Law on Motion to Remand Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Holds Fifth Circuit”

Because Defendants Never Received Written Notice from Plaintiff That Disclosed Basis for Federal Jurisdiction, Third Circuit Holds That 30-Day Clock for Removal Never Triggered Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441

In McLaren v. The UPS Store Inc., No. 22-1379 (3d Cir. Apr. 25, 2022), the Third Circuit vacates an order remanding a case to state court on timing grounds, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law in finding that the 30-day clock for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 started runningContinue reading “Because Defendants Never Received Written Notice from Plaintiff That Disclosed Basis for Federal Jurisdiction, Third Circuit Holds That 30-Day Clock for Removal Never Triggered Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441”

Split Eleventh Circuit Panel Holds That 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) Grants No Appellate Jurisdiction Over Remand to State Court Under CAFA If the District Court Grants It Sua Sponte

In Ruhlen, et al. v. Holiday Haven Homeowners, Inc., No. 21-90022 (11th Cir. Mar 10, 2022), owing to a quirk in the statutory language, a 2-1 panel holds that 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) – which ordinarily allows a U.S. Court of Appeals to hear an appeal “from an order of a district court granting orContinue reading “Split Eleventh Circuit Panel Holds That 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) Grants No Appellate Jurisdiction Over Remand to State Court Under CAFA If the District Court Grants It Sua Sponte”

“Home State” Exception to Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Does Not Apply Where the “Primary Thrust” of the Case Is Liability Against an Out-of-State Defendant, Fifth Circuit Holds

In Madison v. ADT LLC, No. 21-90028 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021), the panel holds that the district court should have disregarded the nominal in-state defendant when evaluating the “home state” exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). It holds that primary defendants include those at whom a lawsuit isContinue reading ““Home State” Exception to Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Does Not Apply Where the “Primary Thrust” of the Case Is Liability Against an Out-of-State Defendant, Fifth Circuit Holds”

Plaintiff Gets Her Own Lawsuit Dismissed on Spokeo Grounds in Seventh Circuit

In Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 20-3249 (7th Cir. Jan. 14, 2021), a plaintiff fighting removal of her Illinois class action from state court persuades the Seventh Circuit that the federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim. “Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, familiarly known as BIPA, provides robust protections for the biometric informationContinue reading “Plaintiff Gets Her Own Lawsuit Dismissed on Spokeo Grounds in Seventh Circuit”

Ninth Circuit Vacates Class-Settlement Fee Award Under Rule 23(h), Rejecting Lodestar-With-Multiplier Calculation in Case Where 96% of Value Is Coupons

In Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 16-56666 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2020), a Ninth Circuit panel affirms a class settlement, but remands the case for a recalculation of the attorney’s fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). The panel finds that awarding the lawyers’ billable hours with a 1.69 multiplier – totaling $14.8 million –Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Vacates Class-Settlement Fee Award Under Rule 23(h), Rejecting Lodestar-With-Multiplier Calculation in Case Where 96% of Value Is Coupons”

Plaintiff Had Standing to Represent Customers Who Paid Automatic Gratuities at All 49 Hotel Locations in Florida, Holds Eleventh Circuit

In Fox v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, No. 19-10361 (11th Cir. Sept. 29, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit reverses dismissal of a putative class action, holding that the class representative – who ate at three Ritz-Carlton restaurants, and alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act – could bring a claim onContinue reading “Plaintiff Had Standing to Represent Customers Who Paid Automatic Gratuities at All 49 Hotel Locations in Florida, Holds Eleventh Circuit”

CAFA Removal Petition Need Only Plausibly Allege – Not Prove – An Amount in Controversy, Holds Ninth Circuit

In Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., No. 20-55709 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2020), the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court erred in holding that a defendant seeking to remove a matter from state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C § 1332(d), had to factually prove that amount in controversy wasContinue reading “CAFA Removal Petition Need Only Plausibly Allege – Not Prove – An Amount in Controversy, Holds Ninth Circuit”