CAFA CASES - BY SUBJECT - EXCEPTIONS


<< Back to CAFA Cases


The “Exceptions” subject covers the exceptions, or “carve-outs” to CAFA. Included are the local controversy, defendant’s home state, state action and securities exceptions.



3rd CIRCUIT


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.




6TH CIRCUIT


Title: Indiana State District Council of Laborers and Hod Carriers Pension Fund v. Rental Care Group, Inc.

Cite:  2005 WL 2000658 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 18, 2005)

Date: August 18, 2005

Court: Middle District of Tennessee (6th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Exceptions

Summary: The Middle District of Tennessee holds that removal based upon CAFA is improper where a class action is solely based upon breach of fiduciary duty in connection with a security, such a case is a “carve out” from CAFA.




8TH CIRCUIT


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: 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.




9TH CIRCUIT


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: 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: 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: 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.




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.




11TH CIRCUIT


Title: Evans v Walter Industries, Inc.

Cite:  No. 06-11974, 2006 WL 1374688 (11th Cir. May 22, 2006)

Date: May 22, 2006

Court: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Subject: CAFA – Burden of Proof, Exceptions

Summary:  11th Circuit holds that once the party removing under CAFA has carried its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, the party seeking remand under the local controversy exception bears the burden of proof with regard to that exception.


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