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).
- April 26, 2007Alan E. Rothman
Companies expect their general counsel to pay attention to all the little details, but some legal chiefs have fallen behind in keeping their own affairs in order. A survey by The Corporate Counselor's ALM sibling magazine, Corporate Counsel, of the Fortune 250 found eight GCs who are not properly licensed in the state in which they work.
April 04, 2007Elizabeth AmonNews about lawyers and law firms in the insurance industry.
March 29, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
March 29, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |In asbestos insurance coverage litigation, the extent of an insurer's liability to its insured often turns on whether the court determines that the underlying asbestos injury took place while the insured was conducting operations, such as asbestos installation or tear out, or after such operations were completed. This distinction is important to the insurer because under many general liability policies injuries taking place during operations may be held as not subject to aggregate limits, whereas injuries taking place after completion typically are held subject to aggregate limits.
March 29, 2007Christine CwiertnyPunitive damages long have been awarded 'to punish wrongdoers and thereby deter the commission of wrongful acts ... ' Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 21 Cal. 3d 910, 928 n.13, 148 Cal. Rptr. 389, 399 n.13 (1978). In order to accurately determine how large a punitive damage award should be, the financial condition of a defendant must be evaluated. If a punitive damage award is not large enough, then it is not likely to have any deterrent effect. Instead, because it simply would be a cost of doing business, it actually may serve as an incentive to further wrongful conduct. Therefore, in order to accurately determine how much of a punitive damage award is enough, but not too much, the financial condition of an insurance carrier needs to be evaluated. Id. at 928 (the wealth of defendant must be considered or else 'the function of deterrence ... will not be served if the wealth of the defendant allows him to absorb the award with little or no discomfort'); Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal. 3d 105, 111-12, 284 Cal. Rptr. 318, 321 (1991) ('The most important question is whether the amount of the punitive damages award will have deterrent effect — without being excessive ... This balance cannot be made absent evidence of the defendant's financial condition.').
March 29, 2007Kirk PasichThree instances of contaminated food with potentially wide-ranging impacts have received national media attention in the past six months.
March 29, 2007Dale E. HausmanHighlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
March 29, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |When they got the case, Miami attorneys Thomas and Elizabeth Culmo had virtually no information about the allegedly defective motor scooter that had caused their client a serious spinal injury.
March 29, 2007Rebecca RiddickPart One of this series discussed the impact of consumer expectations with respect to electronic stability control systems in the auto industry. This month's installment addresses unreasonable expectations with respect to antilock braking systems.
March 29, 2007John D. Sear