Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Category: Class Action Defense

Eleventh Circuit Holds That Complaint for Declaratory Relief is “Up to the Task” of Satisfying the $5 Million Jurisdictional Amount for CAFA Removal

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 2, 2014

Recently, in South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a class action complaint seeking only declaratory relief may be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), because the class members would be eligible to recover more than $5 million — the “amount in controversy” threshold for federal jurisdiction under CAFA — if such relief were granted. Central to the court’s holding was that the “amount in controversy” is an estimate of the value of what is at stake in the litigation, and not a precise measurement of plaintiffs’ likely recovery. In affirming the removal of a complaint seeking only declaratory relief under CAFA, the Eleventh Circuit offered useful insight on the burden of proof for “amount in controversy” purposes.

Supreme Court Shuts Door on Moldy Washer Litigations

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 30, 2014

After much anticipation, on February 24, 2014, the Supreme Court rejected, without comment, Whirlpool Corp.’s and Sears Roebuck & Co.’s bids to challenge class certification in litigations involving allegedly defective washer machines. For a discussion of the history of the “moldy washer” cases, click here and here. In denying the writs of certiorari, the Supreme Court declined to disturb the Sixth and Seventh Circuits’ post-remand orders, concluding that Comcast Corp. v. Behrend had “limited application” to decisions where determinations on liability and damages were bifurcated.

New Authority for Class Action Defendants Allowing Merits-First Bifurcated Discovery

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On March 25, 2014

The cost and burden of class action discovery often puts undue pressure on defendants to settle cases that have little or no merit. To relieve this pressure, courts sometimes permit bifurcated discovery, with the parties first addressing class certification issues and later, if warranted, merits issues. Recently, in Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Janssen Pharms., Inc., the District of New Jersey ordered bifurcated discovery but reversed the normal mechanics, limiting the first phase to merits issues before permitting any class discovery. The result is the same, though: potentially enormous time- and cost-savings. This strategy may be worth considering in cases where there are potentially dispositive merits issues.

Supreme Court Says Unnamed Interested Parties Insufficient for Mass Action Removal Under Class Action Fairness Act

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On February 24, 2014

In Mississippi v. AU Optronics, the United States Supreme Court recently held that consumer actions filed in state court by an attorney general on behalf of the state’s citizens cannot be removed to federal court as “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). In the unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court held that even though the State of Mississippi was suing in a representative capacity, the Mississippi attorney general was only one person and therefore did not satisfy the 100-person requirement for removal to federal court under CAFA. While AU Optronics involved an action by the state attorney general, the Supreme Court’s ruling is instructive on the standards for removal of a mass action under CAFA and is applicable to public and private actions alike.

Third Circuit Provides Guidance on Exceptions to CAFA Removal

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On November 13, 2013

In a precedential opinion, the Third Circuit in Vodenichar v. Halcón Energy Properties, Inc., clarified the “home state” and “local controversy” exceptions to federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). The decision provides guidance on two undefined terms within CAFA, adopting broader interpretations for what makes a defendant a “primary defendant” for purposes of the home state exception and what constitutes an “other class action” for purposes of the local controversy exception.

Class Action Defendants Seeking to Eliminate Removal Uncertainty Get Assistance from Seventh Circuit Decision

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On November 6, 2013

In an opinion beneficial to class action defendants, the Seventh Circuit has taken some of the guesswork out of removal by holding that the 30-day period for removing a case to federal court only begins once the defendant has received a pleading or other litigation paper that includes a specific, unequivocal statement that the damages sought meet the jurisdictional amount.

Burden of Demonstrating CAFA Jurisdictional Amount Lowered for Ninth Circuit Defendants

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On November 1, 2013

Following the rule announced in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the Ninth Circuit has reversed course on the burden borne by defendants seeking to remove under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Now, defendants need only establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. In Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, the Ninth Circuit was faced with a putative class representative’s waiver of all damages above $5 million. The waiver was designed to avoid removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), but earlier this year, the Supreme Court held in Standard Fire that such waivers are ineffective. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s order remanding the case to state court and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

The Sixth Circuit Reaffirms its Holding in Glazer v. Whirlpool Allowing Plaintiffs with Moldy Washers to Proceed United as a Class

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 21, 2013

The litigations involving allegedly defective Whirlpool washing machines are back in the legal headlines with the most recent installment hailing from the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., a decision which—following remand from the Supreme Court of the United States—reaffirmed a prior order certifying a class action lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit’s certification order may, however, face scrutiny from the Supreme Court once again.

How Will the Supreme Court’s Decision in American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant Impact Class Action Litigation

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 16, 2013

In American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Supreme Court recently furthered its holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion by making it clear that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not permit courts to invalidate contractual waivers of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff’s cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery. Italian Colors reflects the “overarching principle that arbitration is a matter of contract,” and that “courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms,” including terms that specify “with whom the parties will arbitrate,” as well as “the rules under which arbitration will be conducted.”

Lessons to Learn in the Wake of the Sixth Circuit’s Decision Upsetting the Class Settlement in the Dry Max Pampers Litigation

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 11, 2013

There have been a flurry of federal appellate court decisions this year and last scrutinizing and overturning class settlements (see In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig. and Radcliffe v. Experian, merely by way of example). That trend continued on August 2, 2013, with In re Dry Max Pampers Litigation, a case involving Pampers marketed with “Dry Max technology,” where the Sixth Circuit upset a settlement awarding class counsel $2.73 million in attorneys’ fees and the named plaintiffs $1,000 “per ‘affected child.’” The Court found it offered the class representatives and class counsel “preferential treatment” at the expense of unnamed class members, who received nothing save what the Sixth Circuit characterized as “worthless injunctive relief.” Though the latest decisions out of the Third and Seventh Circuits addressing the bona fides of attorneys’ fee awards in class settlements — see Kirsch v. Delta Dental and Silverman v. Motorola — held that the deals there passed muster, both sides of the bar would be well served by taking note of what went wrong in In re Dry Max.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories