CAFA CASES - BY JURISDICTION - FEDERAL - 11TH CIRCUIT


<< Back to CAFA Cases



APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS


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: 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.




DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS


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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.


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