Author: LandMark Publications

Publisher:

Published: 2017-05-09

Total Pages: 504

ISBN-13: 9781521251997

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that discuss, analyze and interpret provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. The selection of decisions spans from 2013 to the date of publication.CAFA was enacted with the stated purpose of expanding the number of class actions that could be heard in federal court. Amoche, 556 F.3d at 47, 49 (stating that, "[i]n CAFA, Congress expressly expanded federal jurisdiction largely for the benefit of defendants against a background of what it considered to be abusive class action practices in state courts," "which had 'harmed class members with legitimate claims and defendants that had acted responsibly,' 'adversely affected interstate commerce,' and 'undermined public respect for our judicial system'" (alteration omitted) (quoting CAFA, Pub.L. No. 109-2, § 2(a), 119 Stat. 4, 4 (2005))). Congress effectuated that purpose "by imposing only a minimal diversity requirement, eliminating the statutory one-year time limit for removal, and providing for interlocutory appeal of a federal district court's remand order." Id. at 47-48 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1453(b), (c)). Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., 819 F. 3d 548 (1st Cir. 2016).CAFA extends federal jurisdiction to certain large class action lawsuits. Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 569 (5th Cir.2011). CAFA jurisdiction may be exercised where the proposed class is at least 100 members, minimal diversity exists between the parties, the amount in controversy is greater than $5,000,000, and the primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (5). Arbuckle Mountain Ranch v. Chesapeake Energy, 810 F. 3d 335 (5th Cir. 2016).CAFA was enacted in 2005, approximately 15 years after Congress passed the supplemental jurisdiction statute. CAFA itself "dramatically expanded federal jurisdiction over class actions." Greenwich Fin. Servs. Distressed Mortg. Fund 3 LLC v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 603 F.3d 23, 32 (2d Cir. 2010). It did so with the "primary objective" of "ensuring Federal court consideration of interstate [class action] cases of national importance." Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, --U.S.--, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 1350 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). By bringing large class actions within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, CAFA also sought to "curb perceived abuses of the class action device which . . . had often been used to litigate multi-state or even national class actions in state courts." Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d at 1090. F5 Capital v. Pappas, (2nd Cir. 2017).

Download or read book Class Action Fairness Act written by LandMark Publications and published by . This book was released on 2017-05-09 with total page 504 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that discuss, analyze and interpret provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. The selection of decisions spans from 2013 to the date of publication.CAFA was enacted with the stated purpose of expanding the number of class actions that could be heard in federal court. Amoche, 556 F.3d at 47, 49 (stating that, "[i]n CAFA, Congress expressly expanded federal jurisdiction largely for the benefit of defendants against a background of what it considered to be abusive class action practices in state courts," "which had 'harmed class members with legitimate claims and defendants that had acted responsibly,' 'adversely affected interstate commerce,' and 'undermined public respect for our judicial system'" (alteration omitted) (quoting CAFA, Pub.L. No. 109-2, § 2(a), 119 Stat. 4, 4 (2005))). Congress effectuated that purpose "by imposing only a minimal diversity requirement, eliminating the statutory one-year time limit for removal, and providing for interlocutory appeal of a federal district court's remand order." Id. at 47-48 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1453(b), (c)). Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., 819 F. 3d 548 (1st Cir. 2016).CAFA extends federal jurisdiction to certain large class action lawsuits. Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 569 (5th Cir.2011). CAFA jurisdiction may be exercised where the proposed class is at least 100 members, minimal diversity exists between the parties, the amount in controversy is greater than $5,000,000, and the primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (5). Arbuckle Mountain Ranch v. Chesapeake Energy, 810 F. 3d 335 (5th Cir. 2016).CAFA was enacted in 2005, approximately 15 years after Congress passed the supplemental jurisdiction statute. CAFA itself "dramatically expanded federal jurisdiction over class actions." Greenwich Fin. Servs. Distressed Mortg. Fund 3 LLC v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 603 F.3d 23, 32 (2d Cir. 2010). It did so with the "primary objective" of "ensuring Federal court consideration of interstate [class action] cases of national importance." Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, --U.S.--, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 1350 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). By bringing large class actions within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, CAFA also sought to "curb perceived abuses of the class action device which . . . had often been used to litigate multi-state or even national class actions in state courts." Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d at 1090. F5 Capital v. Pappas, (2nd Cir. 2017).