CAFA CASES - BY JURISDICTION - FEDERAL - 3RD CIRCUIT


<< Back to CAFA Cases



DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS


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: 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: 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: 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. 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: 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)




BANKRUPTCY COURT DECISIONS


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 (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

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


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