CAFA CASES - BY JURISDICTION - FEDERAL - 9TH CIRCUIT


<< Back to CAFA Cases



APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS


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: 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.


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

Cite:  435 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006)

Date: January 26, 2006

Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Appeals

Summary:  9th Circuit hears plaintiff’s appeal, holds that CAFA imposes a deadline of seven court days for appeals of district court remand decisions.


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.




DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS


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: 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: 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: Carpanelli v. American Standard Companies Inc.

Cite:  No. C 06-0004 WDB, 2006 WL 568307 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2006)

Date: March 3, 2006

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  California district court remands, finding that amended complaint relates back despite other pre-CAFA complaints of varying scope.


Title: Rodgers v. Central Locating Service, Ltd.

Cite:  412 F.Supp.2d 1171 (W.D.Wash., 2006)

Date: February 1, 2006

Court: Western District of Washington (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Washington district court remands, holding that party removing under CAFA must prove subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.


Title: Hangarter v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.

Cite:  No. C 05-04558 WHA, 2006 WL 213834 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2006)

Date: January 26, 2006

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Exceptions

Summary:  Northern District of California remands, holding that CAFA is inapplicable because of the state action exception.


Title: Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Cite:  No. CV 05-768-BR, 2006 WL 44191 (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2006)

Date: January 6, 2006

Court: District of Oregon (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  District of Oregon denies plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys fees, finding that defendant had a good faith basis to seek removal and raised novel issues regarding removal under CAFA.


Title: Provencher v. Dell, Inc.

Cite:  409 F.Supp.2d 1196 (C.D. Cal. 2006)

Date: January 3, 2006

Court: Central District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In deciding whether to compel arbitration, California district court notes CAFA to indicate Congress’ intent to combat abuse of class actions.


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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Morgan v. American Intern. Group, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2172001 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2005)

Date: September 08, 2005

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  The Northern District of California holds that adding members to a class does not commence a new action when the additional members lack a claim “independent” of the putative class.


Title: Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2211094 (D. Or. Sept. 8, 2005)

Date: September 08, 2005

Court: District Court of Oregon (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: District of Oregon holds that commencement occurs at filing, even when the defendant was served after CAFA’s effective date.


Title: Heaphy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Cite:  2005 WL 1950244 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 15, 2005)

Date: August 15, 2005

Court: Western District of Washington (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Commencement

Summary:  The Western District of Washington Holds that a New Action Does Not Relate Back Under Rule 15 Because Claims are Unique to a Party Named in the Case; Holds that Remanding Party Bears the Burden of Proving No Jurisdiction(?); And,


Title: In re Textainer Partnership Securities Litigation

Cite:  2005 WL 1791559 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2005)

Date: July 27, 2005

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Exceptions

Summary: The Northern District of California holds that there is no federal jurisdiction because CAFA exceptions apply to this case, specifically claims relate to securities and internal affairs or governance; The Northern District of California holds that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the exceptions apply.


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

Cite:  2005 WL 1799740 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2005)

Date: July 27, 2005

Court: Western District of Washington (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary: The Western District of Washington holds that the party seeking remand bears the burden of proof regarding subject matter jurisdiction.


Title: Yeroushalmi v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2083008 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2005)

Date: July 11, 2005

Court: Central District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary: The Central District of California holds that CAFA places the burden on the party seeking remand to establish absence of federal jurisdiction.


Title: Sneddon v. Hotwire, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 1593593 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2005)

Date: June 29, 2005

Court: Northern District of California (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Northern District of California holds that CAFA commencement occurs when a case is filed in state court, not when it is removed.


Title: In re Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation

Cite: 377 F.Supp.2d 904 (W.D. Wash. 2005)

Date: April 15, 2005

Court: Western District of Washington (9th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Western District of Washington holds that commencement occurs when the original case is filed in state court, not when it is removed or when the state court consolidates the original case with other cases.


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