Eversheds Sutherland 11th Circuit Business Blog
content top

Primary Defendants Tied to Liability for Damages in Class Actions Seeking Monetary Relief

In an opinion published June 14, 2017, Hunter v. City of Montgomery, 2017 WL 2634162, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s remand order under the home state exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). The central issue was the classification of a party as one of the “primary defendants” within the meaning of CAFA. The case centered on a red-light camera program...

ACLU Gets Jurisdictional Discovery from Michael Jackson Because of Disputed Facts

When is a litigant entitled to jurisdictional discovery? The Eleventh Circuit addressed this issue in an opinion published June 20, 2017, ACLU of Florida, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 2017 WL 2636542, holding that, when the jurisdictional facts are genuinely in dispute and a party does not unduly delay in seeking discovery, the court abuses its discretion if it completely denies...

Dual Citizenship Does Not Create CAFA Jurisdiction

Two insurance class actions will remain in state court after the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Life of the South Insurance Co. v. Carzell, 2017 WL 1174083 (11th Cir. Mar. 29, 2017) (Marcus, J.). The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction does not exist under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) if all defendants and plaintiff class members are citizens of a single...

CAFA’s Local-Controversy Provision Can’t Trump Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The Eleventh Circuit reinstated a federal RICO case but approved the denial of a motion to remand it to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in Blevins v. Aksut, No. 16-11585, 2017 WL 782288 (11th Cir. Mar. 1, 2017). The court’s opinion confirms that CAFA’s local-controversy provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4), does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction over...

Direct Appeal from Bankruptcy Proceeding Transferred for Lack of Jurisdiction

Federal courts have struggled with the implications of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), and Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015)—in which the Supreme Court held that the Constitution requires the parties’ consent before bankruptcy courts can finally adjudicate claims that neither “stem[] from the bankruptcy itself [n]or would necessarily be...

« Older Entries