Sinopsis
McGlinchey Stafford PLLC publishes the CAFA Law Blog. The CAFA Law Blog is the leading online resource for information, case analyses, and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, better known as "CAFA." CAFA's enactment in February, 2005 revolutionized existing class action law, practice and strategies. Today's rapidly evolving CAFA class action landscape is now virtually unrecognizable to many class action practitioners, parties and courts. Countless ambiguities and uncertainties in class action law and jurisprudence following CAFA's passage pose immediate opportunities for attorneys and litigants who timely learn how to safely maneuver across this foreign terrain -- and dangerous traps for those who do not. These ambiguities and uncertainties will exist for many years to come. One of the goals of the CAFA Law Blog is to provide guideposts along the path through this new landscape.
Episodios
-
![Finally! An Appellate Decision Recognizes the Distinction Between CAFAs Minimal Diversity Jurisdiction and Traditional Complete Diversity Jurisdiction.]()
Finally! An Appellate Decision Recognizes the Distinction Between CAFA's Minimal Diversity Jurisdiction and Traditional Complete Diversity Jurisdiction.
08/02/2007Download the MP3 file of this posting. Saab v. Home Depot U.S.A., WL0249463601, No. 06-8014 (8th Cir. November 22, 2006) Automotive engineering versus mega home improvement? Nope, but this one might be just as interesting, in a perverse sort of way that only our brilliant CAFA aficionados would appreciate. The Eighth Circuit differentiates between traditional complete diversity jurisdiction and CAFA’s new minimal diversity jurisdiction in the context of appealing a remand related decision.The Eighth Circuit handed down a short opinion regarding the appeal provisions of CAFA and whether they are applicable to cases removed to federal court under traditional, complete diversity jurisdiction. This may be an important appellate court decision because it draws a distinction between complete diversity jurisdiction and minimal diversity jurisdiction under CAFA, where other courts have tended to blur this distinction, particularly in the context of jurisdictional burden of proof. On N
-
![No More Late Fees and Federal Court Jurisdiction Goes Down the Tubes for Blockbuster. Another Circuit Court Holds that CAFA Does Not Change the Burden of Proof as to Minimal Diversity Jurisdiction Upon Removal.]()
No More Late Fees and Federal Court Jurisdiction Goes Down the Tubes for Blockbuster. Another Circuit Court Holds that CAFA Does Not Change the Burden of Proof as to Minimal Diversity Jurisdiction Upon Removal.
25/01/2007Download the MP3 file of this posting. Blockbuster v. Galeno, 2006 WL 3775326, Docket No. 05-8019 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2006). On March 23, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a summary order remanding this case against Blockbuster back to state court, in order to meet CAFA’s 60 day time limit to render decision under 1453(c)(2). The summary order can be found at Galeno v. Blockbuster, Inc., 171 Fed. Appx. 904 (2d Cir. 2006). On December 26, 2006, Circuit Judge Cardamone, writing for the Second Circuit, handed down an opinion explaining its reasoning behind the summary order.The case was originally filed as a class action in New York State Supreme Court on February 15, 2005 by Michael L. Galeno and other Plaintiffs against Blockbuster regarding Blockbuster’s “No Late Fee” program. The plaintiffs alleged deceptive business practice under New York law along with unjust enrichment under common law. The court noted that Blockbuster&r
-
![Riding a Train Wreck Into Federal Court: The Class Action Fairness Act Carries the Defendants to the Federal Court Station.]()
Riding a Train Wreck Into Federal Court: The Class Action Fairness Act Carries the Defendants to the Federal Court Station.
31/08/2006Download the MP3 file of this posting. Lanier v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, 2006 WL 1878984, No. 1:05-3476-MBS (D.S.C. July 6, 2006) You could almost hear the district judge shout, "All aboard!" The South Carolina District Court let the defendants ride the CAFA train into federal court, and then derailed the plaintiff’s case on a motion to dismiss, stopping only to address the burden of proof issue. On July 6, 2006, United States District Judge Margaret B. Seymour issued an opinion and order not only retaining federal court jurisdiction under CAFA, but also dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiff filed the action in South Carolina state court on December 9, 2005 seeking to certify a class of individuals who were laid off or discharged from Avondale Mills facilities in Graniteville, South Carolina after a train derailment which released chlorine gas damaged the mill facility. The chlorine gas damaged the property and equipment, and it inter
