Case Updates
Outcome
March 13, 2014
The court reversed the decision and held that the district court could not exercise jurisdiction over this removed PAGA action under CAFA.
U.S. Chamber files brief objecting to plaintiffs’ efforts to evade the federal court system for claims brought under California’s Private Attorney General Act
September 11, 2012
The U.S. Chamber urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm the District Court's order denying remand of a claim brought under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to state court.
In its amicus brief, the Chamber argued that Congress has provided for diversity jurisdiction in exactly the circumstances presented here – diverse defendants, and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 – and the District Court was bound to, and did, apply these standards without recourse to the plaintiff's ancillary concerns. The Chamber explained that the plaintiff's purported public policy objections to federal jurisdiction should not be a factor in federal jurisdiction analysis and even if they were, they would favor federal jurisdiction as Congress has created no carve-outs for particular causes of action. The Chamber also argued that in providing diversity jurisdiction, Congress sought to provide a home for all disputes involving diverse defendants and significant amounts in controversy; large, diverse PAGA actions are no exception.