Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘diversity’

Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted cert in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719, in which it will take up the contours of the standard for providing factual support in a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).  Specifically, the issue presented is as follows:

Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?

This is the third CAFA removal case that the Court has accepted in as many years.  During the October 2012 term, the Court decided Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), in which it held that a class representative may not avoid CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating to a recovery of damages of less than $5,000,000 on behalf of members of the proposed class.  Earlier in the current term, the Court decided Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), holding that a parens patriae action brought by a state attorney general on behalf of Mississippi residents was not a “mass action” subject to CAFA.

 

Read Full Post »

2013 was a memorable year for class actions.  I’ve assembled my top 10 most significant developments below.  There were almost enough U.S. Supreme Court decisions to fill up the entire list, but my number 1 development was still a pair of lower court decisions that may also become the story of the year in 2014.

10. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) – Not a class action decision per se, but likely to have significant repercussions on the development of international class action law.  Extraterritorial effect of the Alien Tort Statute is significantly limited.

9. Clapper v. Amnesty Intern. USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) – Another non-class action decision already having a significant impact on the question of standing in data privacy class actions.

8. Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) – Class Arbitration is not completely dead, but there’s a blueprint for how to kill it.

7. American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013)- Arbitration continues to reign supreme, even under the “federal law of arbitrability”

6. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) – Can class actions be defeated simply by picking off the representatives one at a time?  That’s for the circuits to decide.

5. Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 133 S.Ct. 1184 (2013) – Supreme Court holds that materiality is a common question and that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to class certification, but raises questions about the continued viability of the Basic fraud on the market presumption in securities cases.

4. Certiorari granted in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, No 13-317 – That didn’t take long.  On the heels of , Supreme Court agrees to revisit the Basic fraud on the market presumption.

3. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013) – Limited holding = damages theory has to match theory of liability.  Expansive holding = no class certification unless the question of damages is susceptible to common, classwide proof.  Which holding will be embraced by the lower courts?

2. Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) – First ever CAFA decision limits representative plaintiffs’ ability to bind class prior to class certification.  Can’t avoid federal jurisdiction by stipulating to no more than $4,999,999.99 in damages on behalf of a putative class.

1. Moldy Washing Machine Decisions – Limited Comcast holding prevails so far.  Two lower courts reaffirm class certification orders after remand in light of Comcast.  Issue certification is alive and well, for the moment, but stay tuned to see if the Court takes up these cases in 2014.

Read Full Post »

If you’re prosecuting or defending a class action or are interested in class action developments (and I’m not sure why on Earth you would be reading this otherwise) you’ll want to know about a great new ABA publication on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).  The Class Action Fairness Act, Law and Strategy, is a book of collected works written by experts on both sides of the bar and deftly edited by former ABA CADS Committee Chair Gregory C. Cook.  Those familiar with CADS (the Class Actions and Derivative Suits Committee of the ABA Section of Litigation) will recognize the names of many of the knowledgeable contributors.

The book covers nearly every CAFA-related topic conceivable, from the history of CAFA to the provisions expanding federal diversity jurisdiction in class actions and the provisions regulating federal class action settlements.  It can be used as a reference guide for the basic requirements of CAFA, but it also provides practical strategy tips for both plaintiffs and defendants in dealing with common and not-so-common CAFA issues.  Here is a summary of the Table of Contents:

  • Chapter 1 – Introduction and Overview
  • Chapter 2 – CAFA in Congress: The Eight-Year Struggle
  • Chapter 3 – Hey CAFA, Is that a Class Action?
  • Chapter 4 – The Amount in Controversy under CAFA: Have You Got What It Takes for Federal Court?
  • Chapter 5 – CAFA’s Numerosity Requirement, or How to Count from 1 to 100
  • Chapter 6 – Basics of MInimal Diversity in CAFA
  • Chapter 7 – Welcome to the Jungle: CAFA Exceptions
  • Chapter 8 – How CAFA Expands Federal Jurisdiction to Include Certain Mass Actions
  • Chapter 9 – Advanced Procedural and Strategic Considerations on Removal under CAFA
  • Chapter 10 – CAFA-Related Appeals
  • Chapter 11 – CAFA Settlement Provisions

Be sure to click the link on the title of the book, above, for information about how to get your copy.  If you don’t have it, chances are that your opponent will!

Read Full Post »

My sincere apologies to the loyal ClassActionBlawg reader for the scarcity of new content lately. I’m on the road this week, but thought I should at least drop a note about two interesting class-action-related developments in the U.S. Supreme Court over the past week:

1) the Court granted cert in  State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., to address the issue whether parens patriae actions filed by state attorneys general seeking restitution on behalf of state citizens are “mass” actions, permitting removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  For more on the case, see Deborah Renner’s post on the BakerHostetler Class Action Lawsuit Defense Blog.  If it were up to me, I’d go further and say that parens patriae cases are actually “class” actions under CAFA, but apparently the Court has its own idea about the scope of the issue.

2) The Court vacated Judge Richard Posner’s decision in Butler v. Sears Roebuck & Co. and remanded for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.  This follows the Court’s earlier decision to vacate the Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation for the same reason.  Given the many questions left unanswered by the Comcast decision, it will be interesting to see what the Sixth and Seventh Circuits do with the moldy washer cases on remand.

Read Full Post »

The Supreme Court issued its first-ever decision interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) today, and its holding strengthens defendants’ right to a federal forum in class actions. 

The question presented in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, slip op. (U.S., Mar. 19, 2012) was a simple one: can a plaintiff avoid federal jurisdiction under CAFA by stipulating to less than $5 million in damages on behalf of the putative class?  The Court’s unanimous answer was no, and its reasoning is also simple:

Stipulations must be binding . . . [and] a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified.

Slip op. at 3-4.  

Does Standard Fire mean the end of any debate about the federal courts as a forum for class actions?  Probably not.  Justice Breyer’s well-reasoned opinion makes the issue sound like a no-brainer, but this is an issue that had been far from settled in the lower courts.  The fact that the Supreme Court had to intervene on this issue is in part a symptom of a lingering antagonism by many lower federal court judges toward diversity jurisdiction.  The ruling is unlikely to change the predisposition of some federal judges to look for ways to clear their dockets by remanding diversity cases to the state courts.  Although the effectiveness of this particular method for avoiding CAFA jurisdiction is now settled in defendants’ favor, that is not to say that other tactics for avoiding federal jurisdiction in class actions won’t succeed in the future.

Read Full Post »

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument Monday in the case of Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles.  At issue is whether a plaintiff can avoid federal removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) by stipulating to a recovery of less than $5 million on behalf of  a would-be class.  Debra Lyn Bassett has a good preview of the argument over at SCOTUSblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/01/argument-preview-avoiding-removal-by-limiting-damages/

Read Full Post »

The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether a plaintiff’s stipulation to seek less than $5 million in damages can deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear the case under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). The specific question presented in Standard fire Insurance Company v. Knowles is as follows:

Last Term, this Court held that in a putative class action “the mere proposal of a class … could not bind persons who were not parties.” Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368, 2382 (2011). In light of that holding, the question presented is:

When a named plaintiff attempts to defeat a defendant’s right of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by filing with a class action complaint a “stipulation” that attempts to limit the damages he “seeks” for the absent putative class members to less than the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction, and the defendant establishes that the actual amount in controversy, absent the “stipulation,” exceeds $5 million, is the “stipulation” binding on absent class members so as to destroy federal jurisdiction?

For copies of the cert petition and other briefs, and the opinion below, see the SCOTUS Blog page for the case:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/the-standard-fire-insurance-co-v-knowles/

Read Full Post »