Class Actions Brief Blog

When a class action is filed in state court, most defendants first evaluate whether the case can be removed to federal court. The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) offers a broader avenue to remove cases to federal court than traditional diversity jurisdiction. Removal under CAFA is permissible if (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 (which can include treble and punitive damages), (2) there are 100 or more putative class members, and (3) any class member is a citizen of a different state from any defendant.

But what happens if a defendant removes a case to federal court under ...

We’ve commented before in this space about the ongoing debate concerning the relationship between the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) and “issue certification” under Rule 23(c)(4). Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit weighed in on the subject. See Martin v. Behr Dayton Thermal Prods., No. 17-3663 (6th Cir. July 16, 2018). The case related to a “Superfund site” comprising a “low income area” of some 540 proprieties outside of Dayton, Ohio. Typical of the languid track of most class action actions, the Sixth Circuit addressed the district court’s decision on an ...

Updated 6-11-18: The Supreme Court’s decision earlier today in China Agritech confirms the validity of the observations in the original blog post below.  The Court held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to successive class actions.

In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown Cork & Seal v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the pendency of a class action will toll limitations periods for absent class members until class certification is denied.

Much recent attention has been focused on China Agritech Inc. v. Resh

We don’t often get appellate guidance after a federal trial judge remands a case to state court following removal because 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1447(d) generally makes such a ruling unreviewable. But the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1332(d), permits a court of appeals to accept an appeal of a remand from a class action. The Fourth Circuit exercised this right in Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC, No. 16-2300 (4th Cir. July 28, 2017), in order to provide some guidance about the quantum and quality of proof required to prove the amount in controversy under ...

Today we continue our analysis of Judge Gorsuch’s class action opinions from the Tenth Circuit in an effort to better understand how he may rule if confirmed for the Supreme Court. Last week, we examined Judge Gorsuch’s decision in Shook v. Board of County Commissioners, and we will take up his remaining class action opinions below.

McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2011)

In McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, decided three years after Shook, Judge Gorsuch again demonstrates judicial restraint. In McClendon, prisoners brought a class action against the ...

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently introduced a bill that would make significant changes to federal class action litigation. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (H.R. 985) states that it is intended to allow prompt recoveries to plaintiffs with legitimate claims and “diminish abuses in class action and mass tort litigation that are undermining the integrity of the U.S. legal system.”

In its current form, the draft bill would likely eclipse the 2005 passage of the Class Action Fairness Act as the most significant ...

Characterizing an unpublished 2007 decision to the contrary as a “thin reed” displaced by later Supreme Court guidance, the Fourth Circuit held that the question of whether an arbitration agreement permits class proceedings is a “gateway” issue for the court, and not a procedural question left to the arbitrator to decide. Del Webb Communities Inc. v. Carlson, No. 15-1385 (4th Cir. March 28, 2016). The case was filed after a builder – facing numerous construction defect claims and an arbitrator’s decision whether to certify those claims as a class proceeding – filed a ...

Lecroy v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02128 (D.S.C. June 2, 2014) arises from a CSX train derailment at the underpass of Cypress Gardens Road in Berkley County, South Carolina, which caused a bridge to collapse. A purported class of Berkley County citizens filed a negligence and strict liability action against CSX, seeking damages for the “cost for transportation,” including costs associated with a 22-mile detour route around the collapsed bridge. The lawsuit alleges a strict liability claim under South Carolina’s Anti-Blocking Statute, S.C. Code § 57-7-240

In Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (Jan. 14, 2014), the United States Supreme Court held that one plaintiff does not a “mass action” make under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). CAFA defines a “mass action” as a claim brought by more than 100 people, and the Court sided with the State of Mississippi, which had sued in Mississippi state court firms that sold LCD panels, alleging price fixing. The defendants preferred a federal forum in which to oppose the Mississippi Attorney General’s claims and removed the case to federal court, alleging that ...