News & Analysis as of

Amount in Controversy Jurisdiction

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Texas Business Court Quarterly Update – Q1 and Q2 2025

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

As a part of Vinson & Elkins’ Texas Business Court Quarterly Update, the following update summarizes the Texas Business Court opinions—categorized by primary issue—that have been released since September 1, 2024 through the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Amount in Controversy Requirement in Declaratory Judgment Actions Between Insurers and Their Insureds

Plaintiff’s counsel often employ a range of strategic tactics to defeat diversity jurisdiction because they view federal court as an unfavorable forum. One such tactic is to challenge the amount in controversy—a key...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Left Coast Appeals

This Week at the Ninth: Remand Review and Tax Evasion

This week, we look at one decision navigating the complicated jurisprudence governing review of remand orders (which one might think would be unreviewable), and another addressing the available penalties when taxpayers fail...more

Rumberger | Kirk

Increased Jurisdictional Limit and New Appellate Right within Florida's County Courts

Rumberger | Kirk on

Florida’s trial court system is divided into two tiers, the county courts and the circuit courts. For most civil cases, the dividing line between county and circuit court is the amount in controversy, with a $15,000 limit for...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

Coupon Settlements: Discount or Discontent?

Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) with the hope of preventing abuse in class action lawsuits. CAFA assigns jurisdiction to federal courts over class actions where: (i) the aggregate amount in...more

BakerHostetler

Ninth Circuit Narrows Already Slim Exception to Rule Barring Post-Removal Amendments to Avoid CAFA Jurisdiction

BakerHostetler on

A plaintiff will rarely be permitted to amend its class action complaint after removal to avoid federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). That is the takeaway from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’...more

BakerHostetler

Sixth Circuit Narrowly Construes CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception

BakerHostetler on

Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005 to address a series of well-documented abuses of the class action process. Among the protections of the act were provisions enabling class action defendants to...more

Carlton Fields

California District Court Finds CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement Satisfied and No Local Controversy Alleged; Denies Motion...

Carlton Fields on

The Southern District of California denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand a putative class action removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), where the plaintiff had alleged that the primary defendant’s product,...more

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Do Medical Records Support Removal And Do Unripe Claims Get Dismissed

In Alilin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 6:14-cv-1183-Orl-41DAB (D. for M.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2015), Judge Carlos Mendoza denied Alilin's challenge to the amount in controversy prong of State Farm's removal to federal...more

Beveridge & Diamond PC

High Court Finds Plausible Showing of Amount in Controversy Sufficient to Remove Action

Beveridge & Diamond PC on

In a decision that may make it somewhat easier for defendants to remove putative class actions from state to federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants in such cases do not need to offer evidence in their...more

Cozen O'Connor

CAFA Removal Jurisdiction: Using a Plaintiff’s Complaint Against It

Cozen O'Connor on

Most cases involving the existence of removal jurisdiction under CAFA involve the $5 million amount in controversy. In a recent Third Circuit opinion, determining whether or not the putative class had the requisite 100...more

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Removal Pleading Standard

The US Supreme Court recently held that under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a defendant need not provide proof of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal to federal court. Only a plausible allegation is...more

Carlton Fields

Eleventh Circuit Affirms CAFA-Based Remand Order

Carlton Fields on

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

Carlton Fields

Third Circuit Weighs In On Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Cases Removed Under CAFA

Carlton Fields on

Days before the Supreme Court’s decision addressing the requirements for CAFA notices of removal in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Third Circuit addressed the evidentiary requirements for surviving a...more

Polsinelli

Supreme Court Establishes New Standards: Removal Pleadings Now Less Burdensome For State Court Suits

Polsinelli on

Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that a notice of removal from state court to federal court requires only pleading good faith allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds a jurisdictional threshold. The...more

Burr & Forman

Who Needs Proof? Not The Notice of Removal.

Burr & Forman on

In a previous blog, we explained that the Supreme Court was considering whether a defendant merely has to allege jurisdictional facts or provide evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case....more

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard Governing Removal of Class Action Cases to Federal Court

The US Supreme Court ruled last Monday that class action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in support of their attempts to remove a case from state to federal court. Rather, they need only include in their...more

K&L Gates LLP

Removing a Barrier: The Supreme Court Holds That, Under CAFA, Notices of Removal Need Not Include Evidence Supporting the Amount...

K&L Gates LLP on

On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens that a class action defendant need only allege the requisite amount of controversy “plausibly” in the notice of...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

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...more

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Confirms That A Notice Of Removal Requires Only A “Plausible Allegation” That The Amount In Controversy Has Been Met

Carlton Fields on

The Supreme Court has held that a notice of removal requires only a “plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and confirmed that a notice of removal need not include evidence...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Removing Class Actions to Federal Court

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719, a case involving the procedural requirements for removing a class action from state to federal court under the Class...more

Nossaman LLP

Did You Know…Ninth Circuit Holds No Aggregation Of PAGA Penalties To Establish Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

Nossaman LLP on

In Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of California Inc., a divided Ninth Circuit held that civil penalties recoverable by individual employees under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) cannot be aggregated to...more

Cranfill Sumner LLP

North Carolina General Assembly Makes Big Changes in Civil Courts’ Jurisdiction

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

On June 19, 2013 Governor Pat McCrory signed legislation dramatically changing the jurisdictional amounts for the various divisions of civil court in North Carolina. For many years, the amount in controversy limit for small...more

Cozen O'Connor

Supreme Court Rejects Class Plaintiff’s Attempt To Avoid Federal Court By Stipulation Damages Will Be Less Than $5,000,000

Cozen O'Connor on

In Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a class-action plaintiff may not avoid the effect of the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) by “stipulating” he will not seek damages in excess of...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

High Court Agrees Class Rep’s Stipulation Doesn’t Bar Federal Jurisdiction

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, resolved the debate between the plaintiffs’ bar and defense bar regarding whether a class representative’s stipulation that damages would not exceed $5...more

43 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide