A further theme of 2014 was the potential impact of general litigation decisions on class action practice. In particular, two decisions released by the Supreme Court in 2014 – Hryniak and Sattva – could significantly affect how defendants approach the defence of class actions: Hryniak, by giving defendants a stronger tool for disposing of claims prior to trial, and Sattva, by opening the door to new arguments against certification of issues involving interpretation of contracts.
No Proof Necessary: SCOTUS Rules Defendant’s Notice of Removal Under CAFA Need Not Include Evidence of the Amount in Controversy
On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split in holding that a defendant need not supply evidence of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
Judge Koh Awards Double Victory in “Natural” Labeling Class Action Against Dole, Granting Decertification and Summary Judgment
As the food “misbranding” litigation continues to fill courts’ dockets, Judge Lucy H. Koh recently put an end to the two-year battle against Dole’s packaged fruit labeling in the Northern District of California. Dole (represented by a team of MoFo litigators led by William Stern) was first successful in decertifying the Rule 23(b)(3) “damages” class, and then won its motion for summary judgment.
Amending Rule 23 would add clarity to the settlement process and teeth to the protection of absent class members. But to solve the real class settlement process, the Advisory Committee will have to look at why so many weak claims advance so far into litigation.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719 (slip opinion).
Each year the American Tort Reform Association (“ATRA”) publishes its “Judicial Hellholes Report” and examines problems in state court systems and challenges for corporate defendants in the fair and unbiased administration of justice.
Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005, in response to perceived (in fact real) concerns regarding potential abuses of the class action process. Among CAFA’s important provisions was the right to remove a case to federal court.
What’s Good for the Goose: Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standing for Removing Defendants
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court yet again rejected a would-be class action plaintiff’s attempts to avoid federal court.
Supreme Court Holds That Defendants Need Not Submit Evidence with a Notice of Removal Under the Class Action Fairness Act
To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the defendant must “file … a notice of removal … containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.”
Supreme Court Allows Removal of Class Actions Under CAFA Without Evidence in Removal Notice of Amount-in-Controversy
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a 5-4 vote today — across perceived “liberal/conservative” lines, at least until the very end — that defendants may remove class action lawsuits under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) without submitting evidence to support the $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold.