CAFA CASES - BY SUBJECT - BURDEN OF PROOF


<< Back to CAFA Cases


The “Burden of Proof” cases address the issue of which party bears the burden of proving or disproving federal jurisdiction under CAFA. Most courts have held that the party bringing or removing a case under CAFA bears the burden of proving federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Many courts have also held that the party seeking remand under one of CAFA’s exceptions bears the burden of proving that exception.



1ST CIRCUIT


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.




3rd CIRCUIT


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: 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.




5TH CIRCUIT


Title: Wallace v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp.

Cite:  No. Civ.A. 06-0114, 2006 WL 380757 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2006)

Date: February 15, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Louisiana (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  Louisiana district court remands, holding that the removing party bears the burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA.




7TH CIRCUIT


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: 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.




8TH CIRCUIT


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: 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.




9TH CIRCUIT


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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.




10TH CIRCUIT


Title: Seat v. Farmers Group, Inc.

Cite:  No. CIV-06-0309-F., 2006 WL 1285084 (W.D. Okla. May 5, 2006)

Date: May 5, 2006

Court: Western District of Oklahoma (10th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Exceptions

Summary:  Oklahoma district court denies remand, holds that a party seeking remand under the “local controversies” or “defendant’s home state” exception bears the burden of proving the exception.


Title: Plummer v. Farmers Group, Inc.

Cite: 388 F.Supp.2d 1310 (E.D. Okla. 2005)

Date: September 15, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Oklahoma (10th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Commencement

Summary: The Eastern District of Oklahoma holds that amending a complaint to add class claims commences a new suit; The Eastern District of Oklahoma holds that the burden of proving federal jurisdiction rests with the removing party.




11TH CIRCUIT


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

Cite:  No. 2:05-CV-293-MEF., 2006 WL 986976 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 14, 2006)

Date: April 14, 2006

Court: Middle District of Alabama (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  The Middle District of Alabama denies remand, holds that removing party must prove the minimal diversity and amount in controversy requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.


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

Cite:  No. 2:05-CV-292-MEF., 2006 WL 1134070 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 14, 2006)

Date: April 14, 2006

Court: Middle District of Alabama (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof

Summary:  The Middle District of Alabama denies remand, holds that removing party must prove the minimal diversity and amount in controversy requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.


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: 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