CAFA CASES - BY DATE OF DECISION - JAN 2006 to MAR 2006


<< Back to CAFA Cases



Title: International Union of Operating Engineers Local # 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Cite:  384 N.J. Super. 275, 894 A.2d 1136

Date: March 31, 2006

Court: New Jersey Superior Court (State court)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: New Jersey state court notes the CAFA doesn’t apply to action filed in 2003.


Title: Wallace v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp.

Cite:  444 F.3d 697 (5th Cir. 2006)

Date: March 31, 2006

Court: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Appeals

Summary:  5th Circuit holds that appellate court authority under CAFA to review district court remand decisions extends only to cases brought or removed under CAFA.


Title: Adams v. Insurance Co. of North America

Cite:  2006 WL 897945 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 30, 2006)

Date: March 30, 2006

Court: Southern District of West Virginia (4th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  West Virginia district court remands, finds that amended complaint relates back despite naming new plaintiffs.


Title: Galeno v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05-8019-CV, 2006 WL 760129 (2nd Cir. 2006)

Date: March 23, 2006

Court: 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Appeals

Summary:  2nd Circuit hears remand appeal, reverses and remands to district court, and extends deadline for decision.


Title: Patterson v. Dean Morris, L.L.P.

Cite:  444 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2006)

Date: March 22, 2006

Court: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Appeals

Summary:  5th Circuit holds that CAFA’s deadline for appealing remand orders is triggered by order granting leave to appeal.


Title: Wallace v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp.

Cite:  No. Civ.A. 06-0114, 2006 WL 851401 (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2006)

Date: March 16, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Louisiana (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Appeals

Summary:  In case removed under MMTJA, not CAFA, Louisiana district court denies motion to stay remand order while appeal of that order is pending.


Title: Hensley v. Computer Sciences Corp.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-4081, 2006 WL 662463 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 15, 2006)

Date: March 15, 2006

Court: Western District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Arkansas district court remands action despite claims of jurisdiction under CAFA.


Title: In re General Motors Corp. Dex-Cool Products Liability Litigation

Cite:  2006 WL 644793 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2006)

Date: March 9, 2006

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court remands, finding CAFA inapplicable where amended complaint included new named party and original complaint was never served.


Title: Steinberg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Cite:  418 F.Supp.2d 215 (E.D.N.Y., 2006)

Date: March 7, 2006

Court: Eastern District of New York (2nd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement, Other

Summary:  Eastern District of New York holds action commenced after CAFA even where parallel state claims predate CAFA.


Title: Carpanelli v. American Standard Companies Inc.

Cite:  No. C 06-0004 WDB, 2006 WL 568307 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2006)

Date: March 3, 2006

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  California district court remands, finding that amended complaint relates back despite other pre-CAFA complaints of varying scope.


Title: Schwartz v. Comcast Corp.

Cite:  No. 05-2340, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7499 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)

Date: February 28, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Exceptions

Summary:  9th Circuit affirms remand, holds that party seeking removal under CAFA bears burden of proving amount in controversy and minimal diversity.


Title: Robinson v. Cheetah Transp.

Cite:  No. Civ.A. 06-0005, 2006 WL 468820 (W.D. La. Feb. 27, 2006)

Date: February 27, 2006

Court: Western District of Louisiana (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Exceptions

Summary:  Louisiana magistrate interprets CAFA’s “local controversy” exception in favor of federal jurisdiction.


Title: Robinson v. Holiday Universal, Inc.

Cite:  No. Civ.A. 05-5726, 2006 WL 470592 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2006)

Date: February 23, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Pennsylvania district court denies remand, holds that under CAFA, plaintiff’s addition of a new defendant commences a new action for purposes of that defendant.


Title: Berry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05-1158CVWODS, 2006 WL 344774 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 15, 2006)

Date: February 15, 2006

Court: Western District of Missouri (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Missouri district court remands, finds that amended pleading which names new plaintiffs relates back to pre-CAFA pleading.


Title: Wallace v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp.

Cite:  No. Civ.A. 06-0114, 2006 WL 380757 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2006)

Date: February 15, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Louisiana (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Louisiana district court remands, holding that the removing party bears the burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA.


Title: Chavis v. Fidelity Warranty Services, Inc.

Cite:  415 F.Supp.2d 620 (D.S.C. 2006)

Date: February 13, 2006

Court: District of South Carolina (4th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Remand denied by district court, holding that for removal purposes, CAFA provides an independent basis of federal jurisdiction.


Title: Werner v. KPMG LLP

Cite:  415 F.Supp.2d 688 (S.D. Tex. 2006)

Date: February 7, 2006

Court: Southern District of Texas (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Texas district court remands, holding CAFA inapplicable because action commenced when defendant filed pre-CAFA cross-claim against plaintiffs.


Title: Rodgers v. Central Locating Service, Ltd.

Cite:  412 F.Supp.2d 1171 (W.D.Wash., 2006)

Date: February 1, 2006

Court: Western District of Washington (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Washington district court remands, holding that party removing under CAFA must prove subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.


Title: Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.

Cite:  435 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2006)

Date: January 30, 2006

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  7th Circuit affirms remands, holds that amending a complaint to add or substitute named plaintiffs does not commence a new suit for CAFA purposes.


Title: Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Cite:  435 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2006)

Date: January 27, 2006

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  7th Circuit vacates remand order, holds that post-CAFA expansion of class to include parties insured by defendant’s affiliates constitutes commencement of new action.


Title: Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309, AFL-CIO v. Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc.

Cite:  435 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006)

Date: January 26, 2006

Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Appeals

Summary:  9th Circuit hears plaintiff’s appeal, holds that CAFA imposes a deadline of seven court days for appeals of district court remand decisions.


Title: Hangarter v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.

Cite:  No. C 05-04558 WHA, 2006 WL 213834 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2006)

Date: January 26, 2006

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Exceptions

Summary:  Northern District of California remands, holding that CAFA is inapplicable because of the state action exception.


Title: Patterson v. Morris

Cite:  337 B.R. 82 (E.D. La. 2006)

Date: January 25, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Louisiana (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  The Eastern District of Louisiana remands, holding that CAFA doesn’t apply when plaintiffs file complaint and pay fees pre-CAFA and must pay additional fees post-CAFA due to a mistake by the court clerk’s office.


Title: Plubell v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Cite:  434 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2006)

Date: January 20, 2006

Court: 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  8th Circuit affirms remand, holds that a post-CAFA pleading that arises out of the same conduct as the pre-CAFA pleading and substitutes a new class representative relates back.


Title: Hot Spring County Solid Waste Authority v. UnitedHealth Group

Cite:  No. Civ. 05-6065., 2006 WL 376545 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 13, 2006)

Date: January 13, 2006

Court: Western District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Arkansas district court remands, holds CAFA inapplicable because amended complaint that includes new named plaintiffs relates back to pre-CAFA pleadings.


Title: In re Microsoft I-V Cases

Cite:  135 Cal.App.4th 706, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 660 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2006)

Date: January 9, 2006

Court: California Court of Appeals, 1st District

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In deciding issues regarding the cy pres distribution of settlements, California state court cites CAFA to cites CAFA to support the proposition that reform of settlement abuse is a legislative prerogative.


Title: Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Cite:  No. CV 05-768-BR, 2006 WL 44191 (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2006)

Date: January 6, 2006

Court: District of Oregon (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  District of Oregon denies plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys fees, finding that defendant had a good faith basis to seek removal and raised novel issues regarding removal under CAFA.


Title: Ongstad v. Piper Jaffray & Co.

Cite:  407 F.Supp.2d 1085 (D. N.D. 2006)

Date: January 4, 2006

Court: District of North Dakota (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  North Dakota district court grants remand, holds that removing party bears burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA.


Title: Provencher v. Dell, Inc.

Cite:  409 F.Supp.2d 1196 (C.D. Cal. 2006)

Date: January 3, 2006

Court: Central District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In deciding whether to compel arbitration, California district court notes CAFA to indicate Congress’ intent to combat abuse of class actions.


About the Site

William_b_rubenstein_2 This site provides attorneys, judges, law professors and students with a comprehensive resource on class action law. The editor is William B. Rubenstein, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Professor Rubenstein's work emphasizes class action law: he has published, litigated, and served as an expert witness in the field and he regularly provides consulting services to attorneys involved in complex procedural matters. More..

Contact: rubenstein@law.harvard.edu



June 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30