<< Back to CAFA Cases

The “Other” section includes cases that involve issues not encompassed by the other subjects. These issues include: parallel state actions, attorney’s fees and settlement. Also included in this section are cases that involve CAFA only indirectly, often by citing CAFA to support an argument or proposition.


Title: In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust

Cite:  2006 WL 1453124 (D. Me. May 25, 2006)

Date:  May 25, 2006

Court: District of Maine (1st Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In non-CAFA class action, Maine district court finds CAFA’s notice provisions “persuasive and illuminating,” and orders that notice of settlement be given to attorneys general.

Title: Good v. Altria Group, Inc.

Cite:  231 F.R.D. 446 (D. Me. 2005)

Date: October 28, 2005

Court: District of Maine (1st Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In deciding a motion to stay litigation, the District of Maine found that CAFA’s provisions apply to the action, but don’t affect the resolution of the present motion.


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: City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

Cite:  401 F.Supp.2d 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

Date: December 2, 2005

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

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In deciding the constitutionality of a gun control act, New York district court refers to CAFA to show that Congress has the power to affect state procedural law.


Title: In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation

Cite:  2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18970 (E.D. Penn. Apr. 11, 2006)

Date: April 11, 2006

Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Pennsylvania district court holds parallel state action no bar to its proceedings; refuses to dismiss or stay.

Title: In re Northwestern Corp.

Cite:  2005 WL 2847228 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 25, 2005)

Date: October 25, 2005

Court: Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: Neither party raised CAFA, but the Delaware Bankruptcy Court noted that state court jurisdiction over the action was questionable in light of CAFA.

Title: Harvey v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Cite: 384 F.Supp.2d 749 (D. N.J. 2005)

Date: August 8, 2005

Court: District Court of New Jersey (3rd Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  The District Court of New Jersey holds that cases brought by Attorney Generals are not class actions and are not affected by 1332(d)


Title: Unifund CCR Partners v. Wallis

Cite:  2006 WL 908755 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2006)

Date: April 7, 2006

Court: District of South Carolina (4th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  District of South Carolina remands and fines plaintiff for a bad faith, wrongful removal, holding that plaintiffs who defend against counter-claims cannot remove such cases to federal court under CAFA.

Title: Chavis v. Fidelity Warranty Services, Inc.

Cite:  415 F.Supp.2d 620 (D.S.C. 2006)

Date: February 13, 2006

Court: District of South Carolina (4th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Remand denied by district court, holding that for removal purposes, CAFA provides an independent basis of federal jurisdiction.

Title: Holland v. Cole Nat. Corp.

Cite:  2005 WL 1242349 (W.D. Va. May 24, 2005)

Date: May 24, 2005

Court: Western District of Virginia (4th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: The Western District of Virginia holds that plaintiff failed to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.


Title: G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Global Shop Solutions, Inc.

Cite:  No. 05 C 6591, 2006 WL 1236710 (N.D. Ill. May 9, 2006)

Date: May 9, 2006

Court: Northern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Illinois district court remands case removed under CAFA, finding that removal was untimely under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Title: Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.

Cite:  No. 05-CV-503-DRH, 2005 WL 3263905 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2005)

Date: November 30, 2005

Court: Southern District of Illinois (7th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Following remand, Illinois district court denies plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, holding that CAFA doesn’t authorize excessive and exorbitant attorney’s fees.


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: 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: 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.


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: 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: 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: Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co.

Cite:  408 F.Supp.2d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

Date: December 29, 2005

Court: Southern District of Florida (11th Circuit)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary:  Florida district court holds that CAFA doesn’t apply where the court previously decertified the class because the named plaintiff was not an adequate representative and that defect was not cured.


Title: In re Microsoft I-V Cases

Cite:  135 Cal.App.4th 706, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 660 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2006)

Date: January 9, 2006

Court: California Court of Appeals, 1st District (State court)

Subject: CAFA – Other

Summary: In deciding issues regarding the cy pres distribution of settlements, California state court cites CAFA to cites CAFA to support the proposition that reform of settlement abuse is a legislative prerogative.

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..


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