Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

CAFA Jurisdiction

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

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

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

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