Questions Presented
1. Whether, for purposes of determining the $5 million amount in controversy requirement for cases removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), the removing party must establish that amount by a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, as held by decisions of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, or whether instead the defendant must meet a higher standard and establish the minimum amount in controversy “to a legal certainty,” as held by the Third Circuit in this case?
2. Whether, in light of Congress’ stated purpose in enacting CAFA to provide a federal forum for class action lawsuits, coupled with the “legal certainty” standard imposed by the Third Circuit, a plaintiff should be able to defeat federal jurisdiction and engage in potential gamesmanship by relying on a non-binding damages cap in its complaint, or on post-removal statements of counsel, as was permitted by the Third Circuit in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals?
Case Updates
Cert. petition denied
October 01, 2007
U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review removal jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act
June 06, 2007
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to grant review to resolve a circuit split to the burden faced by removing a defendant when it attempts to establish that plaintiff’s complaint meets the applicable amount-in-controversy. The court below, the Third Circuit, concluded that removing defendants must prove amount-in-controversy to a legal certainty while the majority of its sister circuits have required a mere preponderance of the evidence. The Chamber was a prime mover in obtaining congressional passage of the Class Action Fairness Act and this issue is vitally important to the proper functioning of removing class actions from state to federal court.