CAFA Law Blog

Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

Blog Authors

Latest from CAFA Law Blog

Walsh v. Defenders, Inc, 2018 WL 555690 (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2018).

On a motion for reconsideration, a District Court in New Jersey reversed an earlier ruling denying a motion to remand based on the “local controversy” exception to CAFA. The Court held that, in order to defeat diversity, the local-controversy test does not require

Myrick v. WellPoint, Inc., 764 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2014).

The Seventh Circuit held that a District Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand due to their failure to meet their burden of proof, was proper, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ contention that class citizenship discovery would have been too expensive.

Plaintiffs were former health insurance policy

Gibson v. Continental Resources, Inc. Case No. 5:15-cv-00611-M, (W.D. Okla. Oct. 8, 2015).

This order concerned a motion to remand a case to state court based on the plaintiff’s assertions that the defendant had not filed a sufficient removal notice.

The plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that the defendant failed to make proper

Whisenant v. Sheridan Production Co., LLC, 627 F. App’x. 706 (10th Cir. 2015)

This decision concerns the reversal of a denial of a motion to remand. Plaintiff brought a putative class action in Oklahoma state court against a natural gas production company, alleging that it failed to pay or underpaid royalties for natural gas wells.

Addison v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2015 WL 461958 (D. Mass. Feb. 4, 2015)

A district court in Massachusetts remanded a case to state court finding that a delay in filing a notice of removal unjustifiable when the complaint, the defendants’ prior filings, and underlying circumstances provided defendants with sufficient grounds to timely ascertain their basis

Grozco v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 2015 WL 411209 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015).
A district court in California denied a motion to remand, finding that the defendant had sufficiently established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million.
The plaintiff class, comprising of current and former non-exempt hourly workers of