Tag Archives CAFA

Plaintiffs may not avoid removal under CAFA by amending their complaint after removal to restrict the class to nondiverse individuals, held the court in Pudlowski v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-189-RLW, 2016 WL 5660237 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 29, 2016). In Pudlowski, Plaintiffs sued the Rams in a Missouri state court under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), alleging that the Rams mislead them about the team’s future location and thus caused them to buy tickets, merchandise, and concessions. Id. at *1. Defendants removed the case to federal court under CAFA, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand back to state court, and Defendants then appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which remanded to the Eastern District of Missouri, instructing the District Court to weigh two declarations from alleged class members. Id. at *2. Under CAFA, federal district courts have jurisdiction over class actions only if (among other requirements) there…

Everybody’s talkin’ all this stuff about LLCs. Well, not exactly, but the Tenth Circuit is talking about LLC citizenship. Joining the chorus of every other circuit court to consider the issue, the Tenth Circuit recently held that citizenship of an unincorporated association (e.g., an LLC) for removal-diversity purposes is to be determined by reference to the citizenship of each of its members. See Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., No. 14-6119, 2015 WL 1430335 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 2015). Were this a class action, the result would be different. For purposes of CAFA, said the Court in footnote 1, an LLC’s citizenship for removal-diversity purposes is determined in the same manner as a corporation—by its state of organization and principal place of business. Why the different result under CAFA? As the Tenth Circuit put it: Not my prerogative. The prerogative to expand the established citizenship rule for corporations…

When we first discussed Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, 568 U.S. -- (Mar. 19, 2013), we noted that a ruling in favor of Defendants could mean an end to the traditional rule that a plaintiff is the “Master” of his or her own complaint, by foisting upon a party imputed damages that may have not been alleged in the case for strategic reasons.   And while the Court recognized that an individual plaintiff may avoid litigating in federal court by stipulating to an amount in controversy below the federal jurisdiction requirement, the Court unanimously held  that the same is not true for a plaintiff seeking to represent a proposed class: "Our reason is a simple one: Stipulations must be binding…. [a] plaintiff who files a proposed class action, cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified." Slip op. at 4.   Even though this…

Close