CAFA CASES - BY DATE OF DECISION - APR 2006 to JUN 2006


<< Back to CAFA Cases



Title: In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation

Cite:  2006 WL 1755948 (D. Del. Jun. 26, 2006)

Date: June 26, 2006

Court: District of Delaware (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary: Delaware district court denies plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, affirms its prior holding that regardless of who bears the burden of proving CAFA subject-matter jurisdiction, once the amount in controversy has been established, only a legal certainty that the judgment will be less forecloses jurisdiction.


Title: Tiffany v. Hometown Buffet, Inc.

Cite: 2006 WL 1749557 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2006)

Date: June 22, 2006

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Commencement

Summary: California district court denies plaintiffs’ motion to remand, holding that the party removing under CAFA must prove subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, and that an amended complaint that adds a new defendant does not relate back.


Title: Oakland-Alameda Coliseum, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA

Cite:  2006 WL 1709610 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2006)

Date: June 21, 2006

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  California district court denies remand, holding that CAFA is inapplicable but noting that the Ninth Circuit has found that CAFA abrogated the one-year time limit for removal in order to permit state courts to conduct jurisdictional discovery prior to removal.


Title: Williams v. Texas Commerce Trust Co. of New York

Cite:  2006 WL 1696681 (W.D. Mo. Jun. 15, 2006)

Date: June 15, 2006

Court: Western District of Missouri (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA - Exceptions

Summary: Missouri district court remands, holds that CAFA is inapplicable because of the 1332(d)(9)(C) securities exception.


Title: Napolitano v. Krystle Towers, LLC

Cite: 2006 WL 1582140 (D. Nev. Jun. 6, 2006)

Date: June 6, 2006

Court: District of Nevada (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA - Exceptions

Summary: Nevada district court grants plaintiff’s motion to remand, holds that CAFA is inapplicable because a prior district judge properly exercised his discretionary remand powers under 1332(d)(3).


Title: Miedema v. Maytag Corp.

Cite: No. 06-12430, 2006 WL 1519640 (11th Cir. June 5, 2006)

Date: June 5, 2006

Court: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary: 11th Circuit affirms remand, holds that the party removing under CAFA bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and that doubts about jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of a remand.


Title: In re Audi

Cite: 2006 WL 1543752 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 1, 2006)

Date: June 1, 2006

Court: Northern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA - Commencement

Summary:  Northern District of Illinois remands, holds that an amended pleading relates back, and therefore doesn’t affect the case’s commencement date, if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as a prior pleading.


Title: In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust

Cite:  2006 WL 1453124 (D. Me. May 25, 2006)

Date:  May 25, 2006

Court: District of Maine (1st Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In non-CAFA class action, Maine district court finds CAFA’s notice provisions “persuasive and illuminating,” and orders that notice of settlement be given to attorneys general.


Title: In re Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Cite: No. MDL-1703, 2006 WL 1517779 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2006)

Date: May 24, 2006

Court: Northern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Northern District of Illinois remands, holding CAFA inapplicable because amended complaint that made no substantive changes relates back to the original complaint.


Title: Evans v Walter Industries, Inc.

Cite:  No. 06-11974, 2006 WL 1374688 (11th Cir. May 22, 2006)

Date: May 22, 2006

Court: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Exceptions

Summary:  11th Circuit holds that once the party removing under CAFA has carried its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, the party seeking remand under the local controversy exception bears the burden of proof with regard to that exception.


Title: Eufaula Drugs, Inc. v. Tmesys, Inc.

Cite:  2006 WL 1379602 (M.D. Ala. May 22, 2006)

Date: May 22, 2006

Court: Middle District of Alabama (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Alabama district court remands case filed pre-CAFA.


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

Cite:  No. 05-56567, 2006 WL 1387491 (9th Cir. May 22, 2006)

Date: May 22, 2006

Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Appeals

Summary:  9th Circuit denies call for en banc hearing regarding its interpretation of CAFA as imposing a deadline of seven court days for appeals of district court remand decisions.


Title: In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation

Cite: 2006 WL 1431214 (D. Del. May 22, 2006)

Date: May 22, 2006

Court: District Court of Delaware (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary: Delaware district court denies remand, holds that regardless of who bears the burden of proving CAFA subject-matter jurisdiction, once the amount in controversy has been established, only a legal certainty that the judgment will be less forecloses jurisdiction.


Title: Evans v Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.

Cite:  2006 WL 1371073 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2006)

Date: May 18, 2006

Court: Middle District of Pennsylvania (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Pennsylvania district court finds no jurisdiction under CAFA in case decided pre-CAFA.


Title: Schillinger v. 360Networks USA, Inc.

Cite:  2006 WL 1388876 (S.D. Ill. May 18, 2006)

Date: May 18, 2006

Court: Southern District of Illinois

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court denies remand, holds that an amended complaint which only joins a new defendant relates back, and therefore doesn’t affect the date of commencement.


Title: Prime Care of Northeast KS, LLC v. Humana Ins. Co.

Cite:  No. 06-3024, 2006 WL 1305229 (10th Cir. May 12, 2006)

Date: May 12, 2006

Court: 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  10th Circuit holds that post-CAFA amendments affect commencement date only if they don’t relate back.


Title: G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Global Shop Solutions, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05 C 6591, 2006 WL 1236710 (N.D. Ill. May 9, 2006)

Date: May 9, 2006

Court: Northern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Illinois district court remands case removed under CAFA, finding that removal was untimely under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.


Title: Miller v Hypoguard USA, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-0186-DRH, 2006 WL 1285343 (S.D. Ill. May 8, 2006)

Date: May 8, 2006

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Southern District of Illinois remands, holding that amended complaint relates back despite joining a new defendant.


Title: Natale v. General Motors Corp.

Cite:  No. 06-8011, 2006 WL 1458585 (7th Cir., 2006)

Date: May 8, 2006

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  7th Circuit affirms remand, finding that amended complaint relates back, despite apparent “place-holding,” because original complaint was never actually dismissed by defendant.


Title: Seat v. Farmers Group, Inc.

Cite:  No. CIV-06-0309-F., 2006 WL 1285084 (W.D. Okla. May 5, 2006)

Date: May 5, 2006

Court: Western District of Oklahoma (10th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Exceptions

Summary:  Oklahoma district court denies remand, holds that a party seeking remand under the “local controversies” or “defendant’s home state” exception bears the burden of proving the exception.


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

Cite:  No. 06-30215, 2006 WL 1156388 (5th Cir. May 3, 2006)

Date: May 3, 2006

Court: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Appeals

Summary:  5th Circuit affirms remand, holds that CAFA doesn’t mandate appellate court review of otherwise non-reviewable, non-CAFA remand orders.


Title: Cuesta v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.

Cite:  No. CIV-06-61-S, 2006 WL 1207608 (E.D. Okla. May 1, 2006)

Date: May 1, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Oklahoma

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Oklahoma district court remands, finds that post-CAFA amended petition relates back to original pre-CAFA complaint despite naming new class members and seeking additional damages.


Title: Wheeler v. Allstate Floridian Indemn. Co.

Cite:  No. 3:05cv208/MCR/EMT., 2006 WL 1133249 (N.D.Fla. Apr. 26, 2006)

Date: April 26, 2006

Court: Northern District of Florida (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Florida district court remands, holds that removing party bears burden of proving amount in controversy and minimal diversity by a preponderance of the evidence.


Title: Bemis v. Allied Property & Cas. Ins. Co.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-751-DRH, 2006 WL 1064067 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2006)

Date: April 20, 2006

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court remands, finding that amended complaint relates back despite including new named plaintiff.


Title: Johnson v. GMAC Mortg. Group, Inc.

Cite:  No. 04-CV-2004-LRR, 2006 WL 1071748 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 20, 2006)

Date: April 20, 2006

Court: Northern District of Iowa (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Northern District of Iowa holds that CAFA doesn’t apply when original and amended complaints were filed pre-CAFA.


Title: Carmona v. Bryant

Cite:  No. CV-06-78-S-BLW, 2006 WL 1043987 (D. Idaho Apr. 19, 2006)

Date: April 19, 2006

Court: District of Idaho (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Exceptions

Summary:  Idaho district court remands, finds CAFA inapplicable because of the 1453(d) securities exceptions.


Title: Whitehead v. The Nautilus Group, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-4074, 2006 WL 1027147 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 18, 2006)

Date: April 18, 2006

Court: Western District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Arkansas district court remands, finding that amended complaint relates back because it arose from same occurrence as original complaint.


Title: In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litigation

Cite:  2006 WL 1004725 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2006)

Date: April 17, 2006

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

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Southern District of New York remands, holding that post-CAFA amended complaint which substitutes named plaintiffs relates back.


Title: Eufaula Drugs, Inc. v. TDI Managed Care Services, Inc.

Cite:  No. 2:05-CV-293-MEF., 2006 WL 986976 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 14, 2006)

Date: April 14, 2006

Court: Middle District of Alabama (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  The Middle District of Alabama denies remand, holds that removing party must prove the minimal diversity and amount in controversy requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.


Title: Main Drug, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc.

Cite:  No. 2:05-CV-292-MEF., 2006 WL 1134070 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 14, 2006)

Date: April 14, 2006

Court: Middle District of Alabama (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  The Middle District of Alabama denies remand, holds that removing party must prove the minimal diversity and amount in controversy requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.


Title: In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation

Cite:  2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18970 (E.D. Penn. Apr. 11, 2006)

Date: April 11, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Pennsylvania district court holds parallel state action no bar to its proceedings; refuses to dismiss or stay.


Title: Unifund CCR Partners v. Wallis

Cite:  2006 WL 908755 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2006)

Date: April 7, 2006

Court: District of South Carolina

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  District of South Carolina remands and fines plaintiff for a bad faith, wrongful removal, holding that plaintiffs who defend against counter-claims cannot remove such cases to federal court under CAFA.


Title: Braud v. Transport Service Co. of Illinois

Cite:  445 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 2006)

Date: April 6, 2006

Court: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  5th Circuit reverses district court remand order, holds that amended complaint which added a new defendant commenced a new suit for CAFA purposes.


Title: Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co.

Cite: 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006)

Date: April 4, 2006

Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

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


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