Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
|
|
- Elisabeth Cross
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY Phone: Fax: Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court Law360, New York (May 25, 2012, 1:36 PM ET) -- Insurance companies often presumptively seek to avoid state courts because they perceive that state court litigation entails confusing procedures, provincial judges and overly generous and unpredictable juries. As a result, after service of a state court complaint, many defendant insurers immediately seek to remove their case to federal court. For the rising number of complex state court class action cases asserted against insurers, the inclination to avoid a state court venue is even more pronounced. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court s decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, which required stricter commonality amongst class members and will likely lead to smaller classes, the question of whether cases can be removed to federal court based on the jurisdictional amount in controversy has potentially become an even more critical threshold issue for insurers litigating class action lawsuits. Until recently, federal circuits had adopted three main approaches for addressing this issue, which they applied equally to cases removed under either diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) or the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). However, the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 clarified the means by which courts determine the jurisdictional minimum amount in dispute for diversity-based federal subject matter jurisdiction, by adopting a preponderance of the evidence standard. The act effectively overrules the circuits that required defendants to establish to a legal certainty that plaintiffs could recover more than the jurisdictional minimum. This has made removal easier for defendants. Although the Jurisdiction and Venue Act is silent with respect to cases removed under CAFA, logic dictates that the preponderance of the evidence standard for determining the amount in controversy should apply to CAFA cases as well. Thus, insurers looking to remove CAFA cases in circuits that historically have applied the legal certainty test should advocate for the adoption of the act s preponderance of the evidence standard. Circuits Adopted Disparate Approaches In Removal Contests Prior to the recent adoption of the Jurisdiction and Venue Act, the federal circuits had developed three different approaches to determining whether a complaint satisfied the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum for diversity cases, or the $5 million minimum required under CAFA. Significantly, the approach adopted by a particular court applied equally in the diversity and CAFA contexts.
2 The first approach adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and followed by a number of other circuit courts (hereafter, the Ninth Circuit test) applied different burdens depending on the damages pled, or not pled, by the plaintiff. Where a plaintiff s complaint specifically identified damages below the jurisdictional minimum, the defendant was required to show to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat l Assoc., 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007). The legal certainty standard deferred presumptively to plaintiffs own identification of the amount in controversy, and therefore significantly tipped the jurisdictional scales in their favor. See, e.g., Morgan v. Gay, 471 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2006) (applying legal certainty standard where class plaintiff expressly limited damages to less than $5,000,000 CAFA threshold); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (deferring to plaintiff s specific demand in diversity case and requiring defendant to prove to a legal certainty that plaintiff's claim must exceed the jurisdictional minimum). Alternatively, where class plaintiffs failed to specify a damage amount in their complaint, the Ninth Circuit test applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, such that the defendant was required to show that the amount in controversy more likely than not could exceed the minimum. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). Lastly, where plaintiffs demanded more than the jurisdictional minimum, the Ninth Circuit test held that the amount in controversy was presumptively satisfied, unless an objecting plaintiff could show to a legal certainty that the class could not recover more than the minimum. Id. The second approach, adopted by the Seventh Circuit (the Seventh Circuit test), relied upon the Supreme Court s opinion in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) to hold that the estimate of the dispute s stakes advanced by the proponent of federal jurisdiction controls unless a recovery that large is legally impossible. Back Doctors Ltd. v. Met. Prop. And Cas. Ins. Co., 637 F.3d 827, 830 (7th Cir. 2011). Only jurisdictional facts, such as which state issued a party s certificate of incorporation, or where a corporation s headquarters are located, need be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Moreover, unlike most jurisdictions, the Seventh Circuit does not construe the removal statutes to limit federal jurisdiction. Id. ( There is no presumption against federal jurisdiction in general, or removal in particular. ). The Seventh Circuit and other courts adopting its test did not vary the test if plaintiff demanded a specific sum in damages. Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2009). In effect, the Seventh Circuit test required the defendant to prove the underlying facts such as the size of a class by a preponderance of the evidence, but then effectively shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to disprove that their damages could exceed the minimum. See Spivey v. Vertrue Inc., 528 F.3d 982, 986 (7th Cir. 2008) ( Once the [defendant] has explained plausibly how the stakes exceed $5 million, then the case belongs in federal court unless it is legally impossible for the plaintiff to recover that much. ) This burden shift is even more noticeable in the Eighth Circuit, which adopted a slight variation of the Seventh Circuit test: [o]nce the removing party has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional minimum is satisfied, remand is only appropriate if the plaintiff can establish to a legal certainty that the claim is for less that the requisite amount. Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009).
3 The last major approach, adopted by the First Circuit (the First Circuit test), applied the functionally equivalent preponderance of the evidence or reasonable probability standards, without regard to burden shifting. See, e.g., Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2009); Blockbuster Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2006). Under the First Circuit test, the defendant must provide evidence, or use plaintiff s complaint, to establish that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum. This approach arguably was adopted, in part, by the recent amendments to the removal for diversity jurisdiction, and thus it likely will find broader acceptance within the circuits for CAFA cases. The Jurisdiction and Venue Act Resolves the Circuit Split for Diversity Cases The Jurisdiction and Venue Act, which amends 28 U.S.C. 1446, establishes one standard for determining the amount in controversy for diversity cases under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). The amendments state that the sum demanded in good faith in plaintiff s complaint shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(2). Thus, if plaintiffs demand the specific sum of $72,000 in their complaint, a defendant cannot challenge the amount in controversy on grounds other than bad faith, which would seem to limit defendants ability to remove cases to federal court. However, the Jurisdiction and Venue Act provides significant exceptions that, in practice, swallow the rule. Plaintiff s demand is not deemed to be the amount in controversy when: 1. The complaint requests nonmonetary relief; 2. State practice prohibits plaintiffs from demanding a specific sum (for example, Louisiana); or 3. State practice permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount originally demanded in the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(2)(A). In those circumstances, the defendant may prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(2)(B). Although not addressed in the statute, another exception arguably arises when a court cannot discern the specific amount in controversy from the face of the complaint because the demand is ambiguous. In effect, the preponderance of the evidence standard now will apply in nearly every case in which the jurisdictional minimum is at issue, because: 1. Many plaintiffs demand nonmonetary relief; 2. Nearly all states either prohibit pleading specific damage amounts or do not limit a plaintiff s recovery to the amount demanded in his complaint; and 3. Few plaintiffs demand a specific amount. The changed statutory scheme, therefore, accomplishes at least four objectives: 1. It limits the circumstances when different standards apply to plaintiffs of different states because of the state s differing pleading practices; 2. It estops plaintiffs from opposing federal jurisdiction on the grounds that they overstated the amount in controversy in their own complaint;
4 3. It prevents plaintiffs from demanding artificially low damages to avoid removal, only to obtain higher damages at a state court trial; and 4. It requires the court to use a preponderance of the evidence standard when the parties dispute the amount in controversy, thereby effectively overruling the Ninth Circuit s legal certainty standard and generally resolving the circuit split. Insurers Likely Have an Opportunity to Lower Their Burden in CAFA Cases Unfortunately, U.S. Congress did not explicitly extend the Jurisdiction and Venue Act to cover cases removed under CAFA. Thus, plaintiffs could argue that the Ninth Circuit s legal certainty test - which presents a high bar for insurers to clear in removing cases to federal court remains in those jurisdictions that have adopted it, for purposes of CAFA. However, insurers seeking to remove class actions have a strong argument that the Ninth Circuit s legal certainty standard has been overruled by Congress, and the standards of the Jurisdiction and Venue Act extended to CAFA cases. Federal courts have historically relied upon the same precedent and standards to determine the amount in controversy for both diversity and CAFA cases. The amendments in the Jurisdiction and Venue Act should not undermine that logical consistency. Nothing in CAFA s history justifies a stricter amount in controversy standard, and it makes little sense to use two different standards sometimes in the same case to formulate the amount in controversy when the only real difference is the jurisdictional minimum ($75,000 or $5,000,000). Furthermore, the legal certainty standard contradicts the congressional goals encompassed in the Jurisdiction and Venue Act, and should cease to find a place within CAFA jurisprudence. The Ninth Circuit test provides a strong presumption in plaintiffs favor, but applies no check upon plaintiffs subsequent ability to recover damages in state court that far exceed their original demand. It permits plaintiffs to game the system and defeat federal jurisdiction by demanding a sum below the minimum, only to recover more in the majority of states, which do not limit recovery to the demand amount. The Ninth Circuit test also causes small differences in state pleading rules to unfairly impact federal jurisdiction, because the Ninth Circuit s legal certainty standard only applies when plaintiffs plead a specific monetary demand, which is barred by some states rules. To apply a universal standard in CAFA cases, a court likely would apply the preponderance of the evidence standard articulated by the First Circuit in Amoche. The Seventh Circuit s articulation is slightly more favorable toward insurers, and it is referenced in a committee report for the Jurisdiction and Venue Act. However, the final amendments to 1446 more closely mirror the First Circuit s preponderance test rather than the Seventh Circuit s. Compare 28 U.S.C (containing no language regarding legal impossibility, nor any burden shift to allow plaintiff to rebut a court s finding). Regardless, either the First Circuit or Seventh Circuit test will help alleviate an insurer s burden and should be pursued.
5 While no federal court has addressed, in a public opinion, whether the legal certainty test eliminated by the Jurisdiction and Venue Act should survive in CAFA cases, a reasoned analysis suggests that it should not. Therefore, insurers may want to challenge the outmoded legal certainty standard in CAFA cases to achieve easier removal. --By Peter B. Moores, Choate Hall & Stewart LLP Peter Moores is a partner in the insurance and reinsurance group in Choate Hall & Stewart's Boston office. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. All Content , Portfolio Media, Inc.
Town Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member Standing?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Town Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member
More informationFebruary 6, Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation
February 6, 2013 Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Knowing Where You Are Litigating is Half the Battle: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument
More informationCase 2:15-cv AJS Document 36 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:15-cv-00888-AJS Document 36 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 14 JUSTIN WATSON, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. 15cv0888 ELECTRONICALLY FILED AMERICAN
More informationData Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future Injury Risk
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Data Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future
More informationPatentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change Law360,
More informationFEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
1242 683 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES tion about Goins criminal history or to use her convictions for impeachment purposes. When the government averred that any disposition of her probation case was unconnected
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0-tjh-kk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: Matthew Borden, Esq. (SBN: borden@braunhagey.com Amit Rana, Esq. (SBN: rana@braunhagey.com BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP Sansome Street, Second Floor
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs, (SAPORITO, M.J.) MEMORANDUM
Case 3:16-cv-00319-JFS Document 22 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN ARCHAVAGE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLO GUGLIELMINO; BRIANT CHUN- HOON, No. 05-16144 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. CV-05-00620-VRW MCKEE FOODS CORPORATION, A TENNESSEE
More informationCase: 3:08-cv bbc Document #: 31 Filed: 02/27/2009 Page 1 of 12
Case: 3:08-cv-00683-bbc Document #: 31 Filed: 02/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationJohn M. ROLWING, Appellee, v. NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC., Appellant. No
ROLWING v. NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC. Cite as 666 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2012) 1069 John M. ROLWING, Appellee, v. NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC., Appellant. No. 11 3445. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
More informationMissing The Class Action Removal Boat To Federal Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Missing The Class Action Removal Boat To Federal Court
More informationEmerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Emerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust
More informationCase 2:10-cv GEB-KJM Document 24 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-0-geb-kjm Document Filed /0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 CHAD RHOADES and LUIS URBINA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) :-cv--geb-kjm ) v. ) ORDER GRANTING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:10-cv-02337-PSG-MAN Document 25 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:261 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CURT CENTRAL DISTRICT F CALIFRNIA Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-00-ljo -DLB Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN BUTTERWORTH, et al., ) :cv00 LJO DLB )) 0 Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) AMERICAN EAGLE ) OUTFITTERS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN T. LEVINE, an individual and on behalf of the general public, vs. Plaintiff, BIC USA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
More informationEmployment Discrimination Litigation
Federal Appellate Court Allows Sex Discrimination Class Action Encompassing Up To 1.5 Million Class Members SUMMARY On April 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which encompasses
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-00-MMA -CAB Document Filed //0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARIANA LABASTIDA, et al., Plaintiff, vs. MCNEIL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendant.
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/17/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 118-cv-02949 Document 1 Filed 05/17/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID # 1 McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 100 Mulberry Street Four Gateway Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 T 973-622-4444 F 973-624-7070 Attorneys for Defendants
More informationThe Wonderland Of Patent Ineligibility As Litigation Defense
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Wonderland Of Patent Ineligibility As Litigation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-2012-L MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Wilson v. Hibu Inc. Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TINA WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-2012-L HIBU INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM
WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION v. METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY : FOUNDATION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:11-cv-07750-PSG -JCG Document 16 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:329 Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a Deputy Clerk
More informationCase 4:08-cv SBA Document 46 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Case :0-cv-0-SBA Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 ALAN HIMMELFARB- SBN 00 KAMBEREDELSON, LLC Leonis Boulevard Los Angeles, California 00 t:.. Attorneys for Plaintiff TINA BATES and the putative class TINA
More informationCase 2:16-cv KJM-EFB Document 21 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-kjm-efb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 ERIC FARLEY and DAVE RINALDI, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
More information11th Circ. Ruling May Affect Criminal Securities Fraud Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 11th Circ. Ruling May Affect Criminal Securities
More informationHow Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False Claims Act Memo
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False
More informationAmount-In-Controversy In The Tenth Circuit: Providing A Corporate Defendant Even More Power Under CAFA
48 N.M. L. Rev. 507 (Summer 2018) Summer 2018 Amount-In-Controversy In The Tenth Circuit: Providing A Corporate Defendant Even More Power Under CAFA Isaac Leon Recommended Citation Isaac Leon, Amount-In-Controversy
More informationAnalysing the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Clarification Act of
Analysing the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Clarification Act of 2011 Venue Layne Kruse, Darryl Andersonn and John Byron, Fulbright & Jaworski - Thursday, 02 February 2012 00:00 http://www.cdr-news.com/17620
More informationPatent Damages Post Festo
Page 1 of 6 Patent Damages Post Festo Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Law360, New
More informationViewing Class Settlements Through A New Lens: Part 2
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Viewing Class Settlements Through A New Lens:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. Civil Action 2:09-CV Judge Sargus Magistrate Judge King
-NMK Driscoll v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. Doc. 16 MARK R. DRISCOLL, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action 2:09-CV-00154 Judge
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Plaintiff, Defendant. : John S. Spadaro, JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC, Smyrna, Delaware
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JOSUE POLANCO, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 18-0331-CFC AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. : John S. Spadaro, JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO,
More informationInvitation To Clarify How Plaintiffs Prove Class Membership --By David Kouba, Arnold & Porter LLP
Published by Appellate Law 360, Class Action Law360, Consumer Protection Law360, Life Sciences Law360, and Product Liability Law360 on November 12, 2015. Invitation To Clarify How Plaintiffs Prove Class
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Jack Brooks and Ellen Brooks, on behalf ) of themselves and all others similarly ) situated, ) ) C.A.
More informationThink Twice About That Liability Disclaimer
Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Think Twice About That Liability Disclaimer
More informationSEC Disgorgement Issue Ripe For High Court Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com SEC Disgorgement Issue Ripe For High Court
More informationConsumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Consumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion Law360,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-3266 American Family Mutual Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee v. Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc. llllllllllllllllllllldefendant
More informationA Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
More informationRevisiting Affiliated Ute: Back In Vogue In The 9th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Revisiting Affiliated Ute: Back In Vogue
More informationPatent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Law360, New
More informationJudicial Estoppel: Key Defense In Discrimination Suits
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Judicial Estoppel: Key Defense In Discrimination
More informationCase 5:17-cv JGB-KK Document 17 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:225
Case 5:17-cv-00867-JGB-KK Document 17 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:225 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. EDCV 17-867 JGB (KKx) Date June 22, 2017 Title Belen
More informationIn 5th Circ., Time Is Not On SEC s Side
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com In 5th Circ., Time Is Not On SEC s Side Law360, New
More informationThe CZMA Lawsuits. An Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Act Suits Filed by Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes. Joe Norman 9/15/2014
The CZMA Lawsuits An Overview of the Coastal Zone Management Act Suits Filed by Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes Joe Norman 9/15/2014 The CZMA Lawsuits I. Introduction & Background On November 8, 2013
More informationCalif. Case Law Is An Excellent Anti-SLAPP Resource
Calif. Case Law Is An Excellent Anti-SLAPP Resource Law360, New York (February 28, 2014, 1:42 PM ET) -- Over the last 25 years, state legislatures in well over half the states have passed statutes aimed
More informationHow Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions
How Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions By Robert H. Bell and Thomas G. Haskins Jr. July 18, 2012 District courts and circuit courts continue to grapple with the full import of the
More informationWhat is the Jurisdictional Significance of Extraterritoriality? - Three Irreconcilable Federal Court Decisions
What is the Jurisdictional Significance of Extraterritoriality? - Three Irreconcilable Federal Court Decisions Article Contributed by: Shorge Sato, Jenner and Block LLP Imagine the following hypothetical:
More informationThe SEC Pleading Standard For Scienter
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The SEC Pleading Standard For Scienter Law360,
More informationHow To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes
More informationThe Post-Alice Blend Of Eligibility And Patentability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Post-Alice Blend Of Eligibility And Patentability
More informationThe dealers alleged that Exxon had intentionally overcharged them for fuel. 4
EXXON MOBIL CORP. v. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC.: (5-4) IN DIVERSITY CASES, ONLY ONE PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER MUST SATISFY THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT BLAYRE BRITTON* In two cases consolidated
More informationCase 2:10-cv MCE-GGH Document 17 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-MCE-GGH Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 HARRISON KIM, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. :0-cv-0-MCE-GGH v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS
More informationPatent Term Adjustment: The New USPTO Rules
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Term Adjustment: The New USPTO Rules Law360,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-8015 HUBERT E. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. TRAILER TRANSIT, INC., Defendant-Respondent.
More informationIn the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Schneider et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Wal-Mart Doc. 9 In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas GLENN SCHNEIDER AND CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER v. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS,
More informationHow Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
More information9:06-cv RBH Date Filed 07/31/2006 Entry Number 14 Page 1 of 8
9:06-cv-01995-RBH Date Filed 07/31/2006 Entry Number 14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Benjamin Cook, ) Civil Docket No. 9:06-cv-01995-RBH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-563-DJH PRINT FULFILLMENT SERVICES, LLC,
Shelton v. Print Fulfillment Services, LLC Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION TROY SHELTON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-563-DJH PRINT FULFILLMENT
More informationTips For Overcoming Unfavorable ITC Initial Determination
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Tips For Overcoming Unfavorable ITC Initial
More informationCase 6:12-cv Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Case 6:12-cv-02427 Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY A PUBLIC TRUST,
More informationTips For Litigating Design-Arounds At ITC And Customs
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Tips For Litigating Design-Arounds At ITC And Customs
More informationClass War And The Women Of Wal-Mart
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Class War And The Women Of Wal-Mart Law360, New York
More informationCLASS ACTIONS. Keeping the Barbarians Outside the Gate (or at least from plundering your castle) Mark A. Johnson Baker & Hostetler LLP
CLASS ACTIONS Keeping the Barbarians Outside the Gate (or at least from plundering your castle) 2009 Baker & Hostetler LLP Where We Were: state court class actions run amuck State venues friendly to class
More informationFOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 06 2007 CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PROGRESSIVE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, No.
More informationFed. Circ. Radically Changes The Law Of Obviousness
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Fed. Circ. Radically Changes The Law Of Obviousness
More informationCreative Class Action Defense Strategies
Creative Class Action Defense Strategies P. Russell Perdew Locke Lord LLP rperdew@lockelord.com (312) 443-1712 Douglas R. Sargent Locke Lord LLP dsargent@lockelord.com (312) 443-0384 TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationCase 1:16-cv RBW Document 22 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-01082-RBW Document 22 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) EVNA T. LAVELLE & ) LAVENIA LAVELLE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.
More informationExpectation Damages Now A Real Possibility In Delaware
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Expectation Damages Now A Real Possibility In Delaware
More informationCase 2:16-cv ES-MAH Document 1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:16-cv-01064-ES-MAH Document 1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1 Ashton E. Thomas, Esq. 1209 East Grand Street, Suite 201 Elizabeth, NJ 07201 Tel: 908-289-3640 Fax: 908-353-8889 AT 3665 Counsel
More informationHigh Court Extends Reach Of Securities Fraud Rule 10b-5
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com High Court Extends Reach Of Securities Fraud
More informationCase: 4:18-cv RLW Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/25/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:18-cv-00796-RLW Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/25/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTINE GREEN and JORDAN PITLER, ) on behalf of
More informationTC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation Jurisdiction
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation
More information9th Circ.'s Expansive Standard For Standing In Breach Case
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 9th Circ.'s Expansive Standard For Standing
More informationReverse Payment Settlements In Pharma Industry: Revisited
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Reverse Payment Settlements In Pharma Industry: Revisited
More informationUS V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com US V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
More informationCONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS
CLIENT MEMORANDUM CONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS Effective February 18, 2005, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ( CAFA ) makes significant changes to the rules
More informationDefeating Class Certification through Superior Out-of-Court Settlement Programs
Defeating Class Certification through Superior Out-of-Court Settlement Programs Contributed by Christian E. Dodd and Andrew Z. Koehler, Winston & Strawn LLP In seeking to certify a class in federal court,
More informationPharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Pharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting?
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 866 May 14, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department The Third Circuit Clarifies the Class Action Fairness Act s Local Controversy Exception to Federal Jurisdiction In addressing
More informationClass Action Removal Standards in Flux
presents Class Action Removal Standards in Flux Effective Litigation Strategies for Plaintiff and Defense Counsel A Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A Today's panel features: D. Matthew
More informationMaximize Your Contract s Exculpatory Provisions
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Maximize Your Contract s Exculpatory Provisions Law360,
More information3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
More informationCalculating Contract Damages In A Volatile Market
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Calculating Contract Damages In A Volatile Market
More informationNo. 13- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. Petitioners, v. BRANDON W. OWENS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
No. 13- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DART CHEROKEE BASIN OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, AND CHEROKEE BASIN PIPELINE, LLC, Petitioners, v. BRANDON W. OWENS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division ) ) This matter is before the Court on Defendant Catalin
Case 1:12-cv-00158-JCC-TCB Document 34 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 160 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division PRECISION FRANCHISING, LLC, )
More informationDoes a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP
More informationWhat High Court's Expansion Of FCA Time Limits Would Mean
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com What High Court's Expansion Of FCA Time Limits
More information6th Circ. Rejects 'Fairyland' FCA Damages Theory
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 6th Circ. Rejects 'Fairyland' FCA Damages Theory Law360,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSICA CESTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 DAWN SESTITO (S.B. #0) dsestito@omm.com R. COLLINS KILGORE (S.B. #0) ckilgore@omm.com O MELVENY & MYERS LLP 00 South Hope Street th Floor Los Angeles,
More informationSUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 28 United States Code 1331. Federal question The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Salus et al v. One World Adoption Services, Inc. et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION MARK SALUS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION
More information'Willful Blindness' And Induced Patent Infringement
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 'Willful Blindness' And Induced Patent Infringement
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO CG-M ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION LILA V. CLEVELAND, and L. D. HOLT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0444-CG-M ) ARK-LA-TEX
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Sherfey et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CHAD SHERFEY, ET AL., ) CASE NO.1:16CV776 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit JOHN LARRY SANDERS AND SPECIALTY FERTILIZER PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY,
More informationDefendants Look for Broader Interpretation of Halliburton II
Defendants Look for Broader Interpretation of Halliburton II June 7, 2016 Robert L. Hickok hickokr@pepperlaw.com Gay Parks Rainville rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com Reprinted with permission from the June 7,
More information