CAFA CASES - BY DATE OF DECISION - OCT 2005 to DEC 2005


<< Back to CAFA Cases



Title: Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co.

Cite:  408 F.Supp.2d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

Date: December 29, 2005

Court: Southern District of Florida (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Florida district court holds that CAFA doesn’t apply where the court previously decertified the class because the named plaintiff was not an adequate representative and that defect was not cured.


Title: Smith v. Collinsworth

Cite:  No. 4:05CV01382-WRW, 2005 WL 3533133 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 21, 2005)

Date: December 21, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Eastern District of Arkansas remands, holding that the relation-back rule doesn’t apply, and that only lawsuits commenced on or after February 18, 2005 are subject to CAFA.


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

Cite:  2005 WL 3440635 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 14, 2005)

Date: December 14, 2005

Court: Middle District of Alabama (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Middle District of Alabama denies remand and orders parties to write a brief addressing which burden bears the burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA.


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

Cite:  2005 WL 3440635 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 14, 2005)

Date:  December 14, 2005

Court:  Middle District of Alabama (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Middle District of Alabama denies remand and orders parties to write a brief addressing which burden bears the burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA.


Title: Fiore v. First American Title Ins. Co.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-474-DRH, 2005 WL 3434074 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2005)

Date: December 13, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Southern District of Illinois denies remand, holding that party removing under CAFA bears burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction.


Title: Tedder ex rel Estate of Keasler v. Beverly Enterprises

Cite:  No. 3:05CV00264SWW, 2005 WL 3409587 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 12, 2005)

Date: December 12, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Arkansas district court remands, holding that the party removing under CAFA has the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, and the court must resolve all doubts in favor of a remand to state court.


Title: Fisher v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc.

Cite:  No. 5:05CV00316SWW, 2005 WL 3409589 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 12, 2005)

Date: December 12, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Arkansas district court remands, holding that the party removing under CAFA has the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, and the court must resolve all doubts in favor of a remand to state court.


Title: Baldwin v. Monier Lifetile, L.L.C.

Cite:  No. CIV05-1058PHXJAT, 2005 WL 3334344 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2005)

Date: December 7, 2005

Court: District of Arizona (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Arizona district court remands, finding inadequate facts in regard to the minimal diversity requirement.


Title: City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

Cite:  401 F.Supp.2d 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

Date: December 2, 2005

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

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In deciding the constitutionality of a gun control act, New York district court refers to CAFA to show that Congress has the power to affect state procedural law.


Title: Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-503-DRH, 2005 WL 3263905 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2005)

Date: November 30, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Following remand, Illinois district court denies plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, holding that CAFA doesn’t authorize excessive and exorbitant attorney’s fees.


Title: Comes v. Microsoft Corp.

Cite:  403 F.Supp.2d 897 (S.D. Iowa 2005)

Date: November 22, 2005

Court: Southern District of Iowa (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement, Other

Summary:  Iowa district court remands and denies attorney’s fees, holding that amended complaints which do not commence entirely new actions relate back and therefore do not trigger CAFA.


Title: Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.

Cite:  No. CV 05-5644, 2005 WL 3967998 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2005)

Date: November 21, 2005

Court: Central District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Exceptions

Summary:  California district court denies remand, holds that party removing under CAFA bears the burden of proving that subject-matter jurisdiction exists and that none of the exceptions applies.


Title: Dinkel v. General Motors Corp.

Cite:  400 F.Supp.2d 289 (D. Me. 2005)

Date: November 9, 2005

Court: District of Maine (1st Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Commencement

Summary:  District Court of Maine denies remand, holds that party seeking remand bears burden of proving an absence of jurisdiction, and that post-removal dismissal of defendants upon whom federal jurisdiction hinged does not entail a remand.


Title: McAnaney v. Astoria Financial Corp.

Cite:  233 F.R.D. 285 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

Date: November 1, 2005

Court: Eastern District of New York

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  New York district court holds that CAFA is not retroactive, and that when amended pleadings relate back to pre-CAFA pleadings, CAFA doesn’t apply.


Title: Good v. Altria Group, Inc.

Cite:  231 F.R.D. 446 (D. Me. 2005)

Date: October 28, 2005

Court: District of Maine (1st Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In deciding a motion to stay litigation, the District of Maine found that CAFA’s provisions apply to the action, but don’t affect the resolution of the present motion.


Title: Richina v. Maytag Corp.

Cite:  No. Civ. S05-1281MCEKJM, 2005 WL 2810100 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2006)

Date: October 26, 2005

Court: Eastern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Eastern District of California remands, holding that an amended pleading relates back unless it provides a completely new basis for relief.


Title: Boxdorfer v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

Cite:  396 F.Supp.2d 946 (C.D. Ill. 2005)

Date: October 25, 2005

Court: Central District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court remands, holds that an amended complaint relates back, making CAFA inapplicable, when it only substitutes named plaintiffs.


Title: In re Northwestern Corp.

Cite:  2005 WL 2847228 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 25, 2005)

Date: October 25, 2005

Court: Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: Neither party raised CAFA, but the Deleware Bankruptcy Court noted that state court jurisdiction over the action was questionable in light of CAFA.


Title: Zuleski v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.

Cite:  No. Civ.A. 2:05-0490, 2005 WL 2739076 (S.D. W.Va. Oct. 24, 2005)

Date: October 24, 2005

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

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  West Virginia district court remands, holding that for CAFA purposes, an action is commenced when it is filed in state court, not when it is remanded.


Title: Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Cite:  427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: October 20, 2005

Court:  7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  The 7th Circuit reversed the Illinois district court’s remand, holding that the party removing under CAFA must prove subject-matter jurisdiction, but only to a reasonable probability, not a legal certainty.


Title: Brown v. Kerkhoff

Cite:  2005 WL 2671529 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 19, 2005)

Date: October 19, 2005

Court: Southern District of Iowa (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Iowa district court remands, holds that amended complaints which dismiss removal defendants and include new claims that arise out of the same conduct set forth in the original complaint relate back.


Title: Arnold v. Arizona Dept. of Public Safety

Cite:  233 F.R.D. 537 (D. Ariz. 2005)

Date: October 18, 2005

Court: District of Arizona (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: District of Arizona orders a conference to discuss whether there is CAFA jurisdiction over the present action.


Title: Price v. Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05-73169, 2005 WL 2649205 (E.D. Mi. Oct. 17, 2005)

Date: October 17, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Michigan (6th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Michigan district court denies remand, holds that a new complaint doesn’t relate back when there was never federal jurisdiction over the original claim and remanding party exercised their right to dismiss the original claim and file a new one.


Title: Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-503-DRH, 2005 WL 2654247 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 17, 2005)

Date: October 17, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court remands, holding that amending a complaint to comport with a pre-CAFA certification order and adding two new named plaintiffs does not commence a new case for CAFA purposes.


Title: Rippee v. Boston Market Corp.

Cite:  408 F.Supp.2d 982 (S.D. Cal. 2005)

Date: October 14, 2005

Court: Southern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Other

Summary:  Southern District of California denies request for a survey of all members of proposed class, states that burden is on party removing under CAFA to establish the amount in controversy requirement.


Title: Komeshak v. Concentra, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2488431 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2005)

Date: October 7, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  The Southern District of Illinois holds that a case commences when it is filed, not when it is removed.


Title: Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc.

Cite: 425 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005)

Date: October 6, 2005

Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: 9th Circuit holds that CAFA commencement occurs when case is filed in state court, not when it is removed.


Title: Eufaula Drugs, Inc. v. Scripsolutions

Cite: 2005 WL 2465746 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 6, 2005)

Date: October 06, 2005

Court: Middle District of Alabama (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Middle District of Alabama holds that a new action is not commenced when a party amends and restates a complaint.


Title: Schillinger v. Union Pacific R. Co.

Cite: 425 F.3d 330 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: October 05, 2005

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: 7th Circuit holds that neither a clerical error which incorrectly purports to add a party nor an expansion of the class definition commences a new action in regards to CAFA.


Title: Siew Hian Lee v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2456955 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 2005)

Date: October 05, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Missouri (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Eastern District of Missouri holds that a party does not commence a new action by including additional factual allegations which elaborate a party’s original claim.


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