CAFA CASES - BY JURISDICTION - FEDERAL - 8TH CIRCUIT


<< Back to CAFA Cases



APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS


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

Cite:  434 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2006)

Date: January 20, 2006

Court: 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  8th Circuit affirms remand, holds that a post-CAFA pleading that arises out of the same conduct as the pre-CAFA pleading and substitutes a new class representative relates back.




DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS


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: 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: 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: Hensley v. Computer Sciences Corp.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-4081, 2006 WL 662463 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 15, 2006)

Date: March 15, 2006

Court: Western District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Arkansas district court remands action despite claims of jurisdiction under CAFA.


Title: Robinson v. Cheetah Transp.

Cite:  No. Civ.A. 06-0005, 2006 WL 468820 (W.D. La. Feb. 27, 2006)

Date: February 27, 2006

Court: Western District of Louisiana (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Exceptions

Summary:  Louisiana magistrate interprets CAFA’s “local controversy” exception in favor of federal jurisdiction.


Title: Berry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05-1158CVWODS, 2006 WL 344774 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 15, 2006)

Date: February 15, 2006

Court: Western District of Missouri (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Missouri district court remands, finds that amended pleading which names new plaintiffs relates back to pre-CAFA pleading.


Title: Hot Spring County Solid Waste Authority v. UnitedHealth Group

Cite:  No. Civ. 05-6065., 2006 WL 376545 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 13, 2006)

Date: January 13, 2006

Court: Western District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Arkansas district court remands, holds CAFA inapplicable because amended complaint that includes new named plaintiffs relates back to pre-CAFA pleadings.


Title: Ongstad v. Piper Jaffray & Co.

Cite:  407 F.Supp.2d 1085 (D. N.D. 2006)

Date: January 4, 2006

Court: District of North Dakota (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  North Dakota district court grants remand, holds that removing party bears burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA.


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: 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: 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: 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.


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: 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: 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.


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