Class Action Fairness Act Blog Podcast
3 episodes - English - Latest episode: over 17 years ago -Homepage Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Overcast Castro Pocket Casts RSS feed
Episodes
Finally! An Appellate Decision Recognizes the Distinction Between CAFA's Minimal Diversity Jurisdiction and Traditional Complete Diversity Jurisdiction.
February 08, 2007 12:35 - 6.96 MBDownload 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...
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.
January 25, 2007 12:07 - 5.56 MBDownload 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, Circu...
Riding a Train Wreck Into Federal Court: The Class Action Fairness Act Carries the Defendants to the Federal Court Station.
August 31, 2006 12:03 - 5.39 MBDownload 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 a...