CAFA CASES - BY SUBJECT - COMMENCEMENT


<< Back to CAFA Cases


The “Commencement” cases address the issue of when a case is considered commenced for CAFA purposes. All courts have held that CAFA applies only to cases commenced after the effective date of CAFA. Most courts have also held that cases filed before CAFA can be considered commenced after CAFA, so long as there exist pleadings filed after CAFA that do not “relate back” to the pleadings filed before CAFA. These issues arise most frequently in the context of motions to remand for a lack of federal jurisdiction.



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.




2ND CIRCUIT


Title: In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litigation

Cite:  2006 WL 1004725 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2006)

Date: April 17, 2006

Court: Southern District of New York (2nd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Southern District of New York remands, holding that post-CAFA amended complaint which substitutes named plaintiffs relates back.


Title: Steinberg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Cite:  418 F.Supp.2d 215 (E.D.N.Y., 2006)

Date: March 7, 2006

Court: Eastern District of New York (2nd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement, Other

Summary:  Eastern District of New York holds action commenced after CAFA even where parallel state claims predate CAFA.


Title: McAnaney v. Astoria Financial Corp.

Cite:  233 F.R.D. 285 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

Date: November 1, 2005

Court: Eastern District of New York (2nd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  New York district court holds that CAFA is not retroactive, and that when amended pleadings relate back to pre-CAFA pleadings, CAFA doesn’t apply.




3rd CIRCUIT


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: 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.




4TH CIRCUIT


Title: Adams v. Insurance Co. of North America

Cite:  2006 WL 897945 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 30, 2006)

Date: March 30, 2006

Court: Southern District of West Virginia (4th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  West Virginia district court remands, finds that amended complaint relates back despite naming new plaintiffs.


Title: Zuleski v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.

Cite:  No. Civ.A. 2:05-0490, 2005 WL 2739076 (S.D. W.Va. Oct. 24, 2005)

Date: October 24, 2005

Court: Southern District of West Virginia (4th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  West Virginia district court remands, holding that for CAFA purposes, an action is commenced when it is filed in state court, not when it is remanded.




5TH CIRCUIT


Title: Braud v. Transport Service Co. of Illinois

Cite:  445 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 2006)

Date: April 6, 2006

Court: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  5th Circuit reverses district court remand order, holds that amended complaint which added a new defendant commenced a new suit for CAFA purposes.


Title: Werner v. KPMG LLP

Cite:  415 F.Supp.2d 688 (S.D. Tex. 2006)

Date: February 7, 2006

Court: Southern District of Texas (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Texas district court remands, holding CAFA inapplicable because action commenced when defendant filed pre-CAFA cross-claim against plaintiffs.


Title: Patterson v. Morris

Cite:  337 B.R. 82 (E.D. La. 2006)

Date: January 25, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Louisiana (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  The Eastern District of Louisiana remands, holding that CAFA doesn’t apply when plaintiffs file complaint and pay fees pre-CAFA and must pay additional fees post-CAFA due to a mistake by the court clerk’s office.


Title: Trevino v. Credit Collection Services

Cite:  2005 WL 1607500 (S.D. Tex. July 6, 2005)

Date: July 06, 2005

Court: Southern District of Texas (5th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: As a preliminary matter to an amount in controversy decision, the Southern District of Texas notes that the effective date of CAFA is February 18, 2005.




6TH CIRCUIT


Title: Price v. Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05-73169, 2005 WL 2649205 (E.D. Mi. Oct. 17, 2005)

Date: October 17, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Michigan (6th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Michigan district court denies remand, holds that a new complaint doesn’t relate back when there was never federal jurisdiction over the original claim and remanding party exercised their right to dismiss the original claim and file a new one.


Title: Adams v. Federal Materials Co., Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 1862378 (W.D. Ky. July 28, 2005)

Date: July 28, 2005

Court: Western District of Kentucky (6th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Western District of Kentucky holds that plaintiffs amending their complaint to include a claim against Rogers Group “commenced” a new action in regards to CAFA.




7TH CIRCUIT


Title: In re Audi

Cite: 2006 WL 1543752 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 1, 2006)

Date: June 1, 2006

Court: Northern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA - Commencement

Summary:  Northern District of Illinois remands, holds that an amended pleading relates back, and therefore doesn’t affect the case’s commencement date, if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as a prior pleading.


Title: In re Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Cite: No. MDL-1703, 2006 WL 1517779 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2006)

Date: May 24, 2006

Court: Northern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Northern District of Illinois remands, holding CAFA inapplicable because amended complaint that made no substantive changes relates back to the original complaint.


Title: Schillinger v. 360Networks USA, Inc.

Cite:  2006 WL 1388876 (S.D. Ill. May 18, 2006)

Date: May 18, 2006

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court denies remand, holds that an amended complaint which only joins a new defendant relates back, and therefore doesn’t affect the date of commencement.


Title: Miller v Hypoguard USA, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-0186-DRH, 2006 WL 1285343 (S.D. Ill. May 8, 2006)

Date: May 8, 2006

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Southern District of Illinois remands, holding that amended complaint relates back despite joining a new defendant.


Title: Natale v. General Motors Corp.

Cite:  No. 06-8011, 2006 WL 1458585 (7th Cir., 2006)

Date: May 8, 2006

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  7th Circuit affirms remand, finding that amended complaint relates back, despite apparent “place-holding,” because original complaint was never actually dismissed by defendant.


Title: Bemis v. Allied Property & Cas. Ins. Co.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-751-DRH, 2006 WL 1064067 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2006)

Date: April 20, 2006

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court remands, finding that amended complaint relates back despite including new named plaintiff.


Title: In re General Motors Corp. Dex-Cool Products Liability Litigation

Cite:  2006 WL 644793 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2006)

Date: March 9, 2006

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court remands, finding CAFA inapplicable where amended complaint included new named party and original complaint was never served.


Title: Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.

Cite:  435 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2006)

Date: January 30, 2006

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  7th Circuit affirms remands, holds that amending a complaint to add or substitute named plaintiffs does not commence a new suit for CAFA purposes.


Title: Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Cite:  435 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2006)

Date: January 27, 2006

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  7th Circuit vacates remand order, holds that post-CAFA expansion of class to include parties insured by defendant’s affiliates constitutes commencement of new action.


Title: Boxdorfer v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

Cite:  396 F.Supp.2d 946 (C.D. Ill. 2005)

Date: October 25, 2005

Court: Central District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court remands, holds that an amended complaint relates back, making CAFA inapplicable, when it only substitutes named plaintiffs.


Title: Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-503-DRH, 2005 WL 2654247 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 17, 2005)

Date: October 17, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Illinois district court remands, holding that amending a complaint to comport with a pre-CAFA certification order and adding two new named plaintiffs does not commence a new case for CAFA purposes.


Title: Komeshak v. Concentra, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2488431 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2005)

Date: October 7, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  The Southern District of Illinois holds that a case commences when it is filed, not when it is removed.


Title: Schillinger v. Union Pacific R. Co.

Cite: 425 F.3d 330 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: October 05, 2005

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: 7th Circuit holds that neither a clerical error which incorrectly purports to add a party nor an expansion of the class definition commences a new action in regards to CAFA.


Title: Alsup v. 3-Day Blinds

Cite:  2005 WL 2094745 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2005)

Date: August 25, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Southern District of Illinois holds that CAFA is not applicable because the case was filed on Febuary 17, prior to CAFA’s effective date.


Title: Schorsch v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Cite: 417 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: August 8, 2005

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  7th Circuit holds that amendments to class definitions do not commence new suits


Title: Pfizer, Inc. v. Lott

Cite: 417 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: August 4, 2005

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: 7th Circuit holds that filing “commences” a case.


Title: Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Cite: 411 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005)

Date: June 7, 2005

Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: 7th Circuit holds that alleged significant change to a class action is not a “commencement” of a new action.


Title: Smith v. Pfizer, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 3618319 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2005)

Date: March 24, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

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




8TH CIRCUIT


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: 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: 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.


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: Smith v. Collinsworth

Cite:  No. 4:05CV01382-WRW, 2005 WL 3533133 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 21, 2005)

Date: December 21, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Arkansas (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Eastern District of Arkansas remands, holding that the relation-back rule doesn’t apply, and that only lawsuits commenced on or after February 18, 2005 are subject to CAFA.


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: Lander and Berkowitz, P.C. v. Transfirst Health

Cite: 74 F.Supp.2d 776 (E.D. Mo. 2005)

Date: May 19, 2005

Court: Eastern District of Missouri (8th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: The Eastern District of Missouri holds that the date of CAFA’s enactment is the date the President signed the act into law, not the date when it was passed by Congress.




9TH CIRCUIT


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: 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: 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.


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: 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.




10TH CIRCUIT


Title: Prime Care of Northeast KS, LLC v. Humana Ins. Co.

Cite:  No. 06-3024, 2006 WL 1305229 (10th Cir. May 12, 2006)

Date: May 12, 2006

Court: 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  10th Circuit holds that post-CAFA amendments affect commencement date only if they don’t relate back.


Title: Cuesta v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.

Cite:  No. CIV-06-61-S, 2006 WL 1207608 (E.D. Okla. May 1, 2006)

Date: May 1, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Oklahoma (10th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary:  Oklahoma district court remands, finds that post-CAFA amended petition relates back to original pre-CAFA complaint despite naming new class members and seeking additional damages.


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: 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: 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.




STATE COURT DECISIONS


Title: International Union of Operating Engineers Local # 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Cite:  384 N.J. Super. 275, 894 A.2d 1136

Date: March 31, 2006

Court: New Jersey Superior Court (State court)

Subject: CAFA – Commencement

Summary: New Jersey state court notes the CAFA doesn’t apply to action filed in 2003.


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