Class Action Fairness Act

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471 to decide whether a defendant to a class-action counterclaim can remove the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) where the jurisdictional requirements under CAFA are otherwise satisfied. At one level, the dispute involves

Justice Scalia made major contributions to class action law,  writing the Supreme Court’s opinions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, two of the Court’s most significant class action decisions in this decade.  Following President Trump’s nomination of Tenth Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to replace Justice Scalia, although it

It is important to remember that when a putative class action is remanded to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), that may not be the end of the jurisdictional battle. Developments in the case, or in the applicable CAFA jurisprudence, may warrant another removal of the case to federal court, if those

I recently published an article in the ABA Corporate Counsel newsletter, entitled “Strategies for Removal Under the Class Action Fairness Act.”  It is intended to serve as a quick guide to removal under the Class Action Fairness Act and addresses the key recent decisions, although it does not attempt to cover the entire

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719 (docket).  The question presented is:

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

Two recent federal court of appeals decisions on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) address the measurement of the amount in controversy on a declaratory judgment claim, and a “late” removal based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles.  Both decisions are favorable to defendants.  The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion