CAFA

The Supreme Court recently held in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger that even if a defendant properly removes a complaint from state to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s post-removal amendment of the complaint to eliminate the basis for federal question jurisdiction will also deprive the…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That Post-Removal Amendment of Complaint Can Destroy Federal Jurisdiction

The First Circuit recently held as a matter of first impression that denial of class certification does not strip a federal court of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), consistent with earlier decisions from the Second, Third and Seventh Circuits.  The opinion also addressed two exceptions to CAFA—the “home state” and “local controversy” exceptions—ultimately finding that the latter did defeat CAFA jurisdiction in the case before it and required remand to state court.  See Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 4750774 (1st Cir. Nov. 12, 2024).Continue Reading First Circuit Agrees with Other Circuits that CAFA Jurisdiction Survives Class Certification Denial

We recently posted about a trend of plaintiffs trying to keep certain class actions, including wiretap cases, in California state court and highlighted potential avenues for removal to federal court. Another federal court has weighed in, declining to remand because the plaintiff did not establish that CAFA’s mandatory local controversy exception applied. Miramalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, 2024 WL 2479940 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2024). This recent case offers another potential ground for opposing a motion to remand, though it also underscores the attendant risk of jurisdictional discovery.Continue Reading N.D. Cal. Court Declines Remand of California-Focused Wiretap Class Action

Plaintiffs appear to be increasingly focused on keeping certain types of class actions, including cases brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), in California state court, likely seeking to take advantage of less rigorous pleading and class certification requirements.  Some plaintiffs are even bringing individual claims and affirmatively alleging that less than $75,000 is at stake to avoid removal under CAFA or diversity jurisdiction, while purporting to reserve the right to add class allegations at a later stage.  See, e.g., Casillas v. Hanesbrands Inc., 2024 WL 1286188 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2024) (remanding individual CIPA claim to state court). 

A recent decision in the Central District of California, Doe v. PHE, Inc., 2024 WL 1639149 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2024), should help defendants seeking to remove putative class actions to federal court under CAFA.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Recent C.D. Cal. Decision Strengthens Defendants’ Arguments for CAFA Removal

The Class Action Fairness Act permits removal of lawsuits brought under state-law rules similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  A court in the Northern District of California recently denied a motion to remand even though the complaint did not reference California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, California’s Rule 23 analogue.  See Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. v. Chevron Corp., No. 18-CV-07477-VC, 2023 WL 7299195 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2023).  The ruling underscores that in the Ninth Circuit, “the CAFA removal inquiry focuses on the complaint’s substance, not formal labels and allegations.”  Id. at *2.Continue Reading Court Finds CAFA Removal Proper, Even Though Complaint Did Not Explicitly Invoke Rule 23 Equivalent