The Court of Appeals may raise sua sponte a question as to whether CAFA jurisdiction exists in a removed action even though neither the plaintiff nor the district court challenged the defendant's removal of the action or questioned the existence of CAFA jurisdiction. Here, neither the removal notice nor an attached declaration established that CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy… Read More
A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a class action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act unless the complaint names 100 class members. (Floyd v. American Honda Motor Co. (9th Cir, 2020) 966 F.3d 1027.) Similarly, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an MMWA case unless no claim in the amount in controversy on each claim exceeds $25… Read More
The district court erred in enhancing an attorney fee award after settlement of a class action. It should not have enhanced the fee simply because the plaintiff's attorney spent many hours on the case, particularly as much of that time was spent on discovery. Since the defendant usually cannot retaliate, there is an incentive for class counsel to run up… Read More
This case holds that when a settling defendant in a class action agrees to pay a reasonable attorney's fee to the plaintiff's attorney separately from the amount paid in settlement of class members' claims, City of Burlington v. Dague (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2638 applies, and the court may not enhance the fee award to compensate for contingency risk. Read More
Class Actions, CAFA, Relationship to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Jurisdictional Requirements, 2, 7 CAFA does not impliedly repeal the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act's limitations on federal court jurisdiction. For a federal court to have jurisdiction of a class action claim under the MMWA, there must be at least 100 named plaintiffs. 15 USC 2310(d)(3). An MMWA class action claim brought by fewer… Read More
The amount in controversy under CAFA is the defendant's possible liability, not likely or probable liability. When the complaint prays for an unspecified amount of punitive damages, a removing defendant can meet its burden of showing its possible liability for an amount of punitive damages by presenting evidence of the compensatory to punitive damage ratio(s) awarded in other cases alleging… Read More
Following Baumann v. Chase Investment Serv. Corp. (9th Cir. 2014) 747 F.3d 1117, this decision holds that a PAGA suit is not a "class action" that can be removed under CAFA because a PAGA suit lacks the characteristics of a class action under FRCivP 23. That conclusion not weakened by more recent decisions, but is instead by the Cal. Supreme… Read More
Remand to state court based on the local controversy exception to jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act was proper in this putative class action against the Golden Gate Transportation District, the Bay Area Toll Authority and Conduent, the private entity that collects bridge tolls under contract with the other two defendants, for violating California's privacy laws by sharing personal… Read More
A stipulation that “at least 67%” of class members had last known California addresses was insufficient to show greater than 2/3rds of class members were California citizens, but plaintiff should be allowed discovery to prove that fact which is necessary to invoke CAFA’s local controversy exception. Read More
CAFA removal jurisdiction is based on the complaint as it stands on the date of removal; plaintiff may not defeat CAFA jurisdiction by amending the class definition post-removal to exclude citizens of other states. Read More
A Court of Appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction over a order remanding a case that was removed based on federal question jurisdictional grounds, rather than on diversity grounds under CAFA. Read More
The local controversy exception to federal CAFA jurisdiction applied in this pollution class action because the plaintiffs sought significant relief from and based their suit in significant part on a nondiverse defendant’s negligence in performing its contract to remediate the diverse defendant’s pollution. Read More
