Questions Presented
1. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) for the first time permitted removal of mass 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)(A)-(B)(i). In light of CAFA’s purpose to facilitate, rather than hinder, removal of such mass actions, can removal be avoided by arbitrarily and deliberately dividing a single mass action into several, identical cases, each with less than 100 plaintiffs?
2. Does CAFA require a removing party to demonstrate that at least 100 plaintiffs will be parties to an actual trial of the removed action or is removal determined at the time of filing, regardless of how the case is eventually tried?
Case Updates
Cert. petition denied
October 05, 2009
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief urging Supreme Court decision of Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) case
July 27, 2009
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to hear this case to decide whether plaintiffs may splinter litigation into identical “mini” collective actions in state court solely to avoid federal jurisdiction conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In this case, 664 plaintiffs filed seven separate, though identical, complaints in the same state court on the same day - each with fewer than the minimum 100 plaintiffs required under CAFA to remove a mass action to federal court. In its brief, NCLC argued that splintering litigation to evade CAFA contravenes Congress’ intent to expand federal diversity jurisdiction over litigation that has a significant impact on interstate commerce.