CAFA CASES - BY DATE OF DECISION - MAR 2005 to SEP 2005


<< Back to CAFA Cases



Title: Weekley v. Guidant Corp.

Cite: 392 F.Supp.2d 1066 (E.D. Ark. 2005)

Date: September 23, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Eastern District of Arkansas holds that amending a complaint to seek nationwide class certification does not commence a new claim.


Title: Plummer v. Farmers Group, Inc.

Cite: 388 F.Supp.2d 1310 (E.D. Okla. 2005)

Date: September 15, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Oklahoma (10th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Commencement

Summary: The Eastern District of Oklahoma holds that amending a complaint to add class claims commences a new suit; The Eastern District of Oklahoma holds that the burden of proving federal jurisdiction rests with the removing party.


Title: Judy v. Pfizer, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2240088 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 14, 2005)

Date: September 14, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Missouri (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Commencement

Summary: The Eastern District of Missouri holds that a new action does not commence when a party amends their pleading to include additional factual allegations which elaborate on original claims; As dicta, the Eastern District of Missouri notes that the burden of proving federal jurisdiction rests with the removing party.


Title: New Century Health Quality Alliance, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2219827 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 13, 2005)

Date: September 13, 2005

Court: Western District of Missouri (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Western District of Missouri holds that an amended claim relates back to the original claim where the amendment is made to correct the name of the party being sued.


Title: Morgan v. American Intern. Group, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2172001 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2005)

Date: September 08, 2005

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  The Northern District of California holds that adding members to a class does not commence a new action when the additional members lack a claim “independent” of the putative class.


Title: Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2211094 (D. Or. Sept. 8, 2005)

Date: September 08, 2005

Court: District Court of Oregon (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: District of Oregon holds that commencement occurs at filing, even when the defendant was served after CAFA’s effective date.


Title: Senterfitt v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc.

Cite: 385 F.Supp.2d 1377 (S.D. Ga. 2005)

Date: August 31, 2005

Court: Southern District of Georgia (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Southern District of Georgia holds that amending a claim to expand the class commences a new suit in regards to CAFA.


Title: Yescavage v. Wyeth, Inc.

Cite: 2005 WL 2088429 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2005)

Date: August 30, 2005

Court: Middle District of Florida (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Middle District of Florida holds that actions are commenced when they are filed in state court, rather than when they are removed to federal court.


Title: Alsup v. 3-Day Blinds

Cite:  2005 WL 2094745 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2005)

Date: August 25, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Southern District of Illinois holds that CAFA is not applicable because the case was filed on Febuary 17, prior to CAFA’s effective date.


Title: Indiana State District Council of Laborers and Hod Carriers Pension Fund v. Rental Care Group, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2000658 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 18, 2005)

Date: August 18, 2005

Court: Middle District of Tennessee (6th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Exceptions

Summary: The Middle District of Tennessee holds that removal based upon CAFA is improper where a class action is solely based upon breach of fiduciary duty in connection with a security, such a case is a “carve out” from CAFA.


Title: Moll v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.

Cite:  2005 WL 2007104 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2005)

Date: August 16, 2005

Court: Northern District of Florida (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary: The Northern District of Florida holds that the removing party bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction and all doubts about removal must be resolved in favor of remand.


Title: Massey v. Shelter Life Ins. Co.

Cite:  2005 WL 1950028 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 15, 2005)

Date: August 15, 2005

Court: Western District of Missouri (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: Western District of Missouri holds that a case should not be dismissed on the basis of comity because the plain language of CAFA reveals that such a case should be decided in federal court.


Title: Heaphy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Cite:  2005 WL 1950244 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 15, 2005)

Date: August 15, 2005

Court: Western District of Washington (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Commencement

Summary:  The Western District of Washington Holds that a New Action Does Not Relate Back Under Rule 15 Because Claims are Unique to a Party Named in the Case; Holds that Remanding Party Bears the Burden of Proving No Jurisdiction(?); And,


Title: Schorsch v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Cite: 417 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: August 8, 2005

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  7th Circuit holds that amendments to class definitions do not commence new suits


Title: Harvey v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Cite: 384 F.Supp.2d 749 (D. N.J. 2005)

Date: August 8, 2005

Court: District Court of New Jersey (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  The District Court of New Jersey holds that cases brought by Attorney Generals are not class actions and are not affected by 1332(d)


Title: Pfizer, Inc. v. Lott

Cite: 417 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: August 4, 2005

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: 7th Circuit holds that filing “commences” a case.


Title: Adams v. Federal Materials Co., Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 1862378 (W.D. Ky. July 28, 2005)

Date: July 28, 2005

Court: Western District of Kentucky (6th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Western District of Kentucky holds that plaintiffs amending their complaint to include a claim against Rogers Group “commenced” a new action in regards to CAFA.


Title: In re Textainer Partnership Securities Litigation

Cite:  2005 WL 1791559 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2005)

Date: July 27, 2005

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Exceptions

Summary: The Northern District of California holds that there is no federal jurisdiction because CAFA exceptions apply to this case, specifically claims relate to securities and internal affairs or governance; The Northern District of California holds that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the exceptions apply.


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

Cite:  2005 WL 1799740 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2005)

Date: July 27, 2005

Court: Western District of Washington (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary: The Western District of Washington holds that the party seeking remand bears the burden of proof regarding subject matter jurisdiction.


Title: Yeroushalmi v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2083008 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2005)

Date: July 11, 2005

Court: Central District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary: The Central District of California holds that CAFA places the burden on the party seeking remand to establish absence of federal jurisdiction.


Title: Trevino v. Credit Collection Services

Cite:  2005 WL 1607500 (S.D. Tex. July 6, 2005)

Date: July 06, 2005

Court: Southern District of Texas (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: As a preliminary matter to an amount in controversy decision, the Southern District of Texas notes that the effective date of CAFA is February 18, 2005.


Title: Sneddon v. Hotwire, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 1593593 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2005)

Date: June 29, 2005

Court: Northern District of California

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Northern District of California holds that CAFA commencement occurs when a case is filed in state court, not when it is removed.


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

Cite: 411 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: June 7, 2005

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: 7th Circuit holds that alleged significant change to a class action is not a “commencement” of a new action.


Title: Holland v. Cole Nat. Corp.

Cite:  2005 WL 1242349 (W.D. Va. May 24, 2005)

Date: May 24, 2005

Court: Western District of Virginia (4th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: The Western District of Virginia holds that plaintiff failed to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.


Title: Lander and Berkowitz, P.C. v. Transfirst Health

Cite: 74 F.Supp.2d 776 (E.D. Mo. 2005)

Date: May 19, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Missouri

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Eastern District of Missouri holds that the date of CAFA’s enactment is the date the President signed the act into law, not the date when it was passed by Congress.


Title: In re Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation

Cite: 377 F.Supp.2d 904 (W.D. Wash. 2005)

Date: April 15, 2005

Court: Western District of Washington (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Western District of Washington holds that commencement occurs when the original case is filed in state court, not when it is removed or when the state court consolidates the original case with other cases.


Title: Smith v. Pfizer, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 3618319 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2005)

Date: March 24, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  The Southern District of Illinois holds that commencement occurs when a case is filed in state court, not when it is removed.


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