The Southern District of Illinois recently confirmed that traditional diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Act Fairness Act (CAFA) provide two separate means of obtaining federal jurisdiction over class...more
Food for Thought is a review of significant court decisions affecting the food, beverage, dietary supplements and personal care products industry. Although many cases in this edition focus on class certification, others...more
2/15/2016
/ Ascertainable Class ,
CAFA ,
Chobani Inc ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
ConAgra ,
Dietary Supplements ,
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) ,
Food Contamination ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
FRCP 23(b)(3) ,
Natural Products ,
Ocean Spray ,
Organic ,
Preemption ,
Standing
The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act’s (ADTPA) restriction on private class actions does not apply in federal court. Federal Rule 23 controls. That’s what the Eleventh Circuit recently held, relying on Shady Grove...more
The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a class action and instructed the district court to remand the case to state court, based on the local controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In doing so, it...more
The value of the claim at issue, not the value of the policy limit, is considered for purposes of determining the amount in controversy in an insurance coverage class action. That, the Middle District of Florida found, is the...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion to remand an action removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), where the plaintiff failed to show CAFA’s local controversy exception...more
Just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the...more
1/14/2015
/ Amount in Controversy ,
CAFA ,
Class Action ,
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens ,
Diversity Jurisdiction ,
Eli Lilly ,
Federal Jurisdiction ,
Incentive Compensation ,
Jurisdiction ,
Removal ,
SCOTUS
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the thirty-day time period for removal under CAFA is triggered when the plaintiffs’ complaint or plaintiffs’ subsequent other papers provide defendants with sufficient...more
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand a collection against insurers brought on behalf of a certified class that had obtained a judgment in a separate action against...more
On April 7, 2014, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari review in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719, to resolve a circuit split regarding whether the Class Action Fairness Act requires a removing...more
On February 14, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Class Action Fairness Act’s (CAFA) $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement can be satisfied where the plaintiff seeks only declaratory relief. S....more