Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CAFA: Finding a Method to the Madness of 'Mass Actions'
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ('CAFA') expanded federal jurisdiction over putative class actions. Under CAFA, the federal diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. '1332, was amended to allow for both original and removal jurisdiction over putative class actions where: 1) the putative class action consists of at least 100 proposed class members; 2) the citizenship of at least one proposed class member is different from that of any defendant ('minimal diversity'); and 3) the matter in controversy, after aggregating the claims of the proposed class members, exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. See generally P.L. 109-2 '4(a), codified at 28 U.S.C. '1332(d). This expanded federal diversity jurisdiction is subject to certain exceptions, including the 'local controversy' and 'home-state controversy' exceptions, where, inter alia, a certain percentage of putative class members and the 'primary defendants,' or defendants from whom 'significant relief is sought,' are citizens of the forum state. See 28 U.S.C. '1332(d)(3) and (4).
Notwithstanding its title, CAFA's reach is not limited to 'class actions.' CAFA's expanded federal jurisdiction also embodies a category of cases referred to in CAFA as 'mass actions,' namely, 'civil actions in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact.' 28 U.S.C. '1332(d)(11)(B)(i). As explained in CAFA's legislative history:
The Committee finds that mass actions are simply class actions in disguise. They involve a lot of people who want their claims adjudicated together and they often result in the same abuses as class actions. In fact, sometimes the abuses are even worse because the lawyers seek to join claims that have little to do with each other and confuse a jury into awarding millions of dollars to individuals who have suffered no real injury. S. Report No. 109-14, at 47 (2005).
In addition, some states have not adopted general class action procedures (e.g., Mississippi) and some states have not permitted class action procedures to be utilized for certain types of actions, such as consumer fraud actions (e.g., Alabama and South Carolina). Thus, by including 'mass actions' under its rubric, CAFA provided defendants with a means to remove (previously unremovable) state court actions involving a large number of plaintiffs, even if the action is not pled as a class action.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Bit Parts
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.