In an unusual showing of unanimity, the full Eleventh Circuit held that a single unwanted text is enough to confer Article III standing to assert a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Drazen v. Pinto, 2023 WL 4699939 (July 24, 2023). The original panel opinion, vacated by the grant of rehearing en banc, arose…
Tag: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
Settlement Class Defined to Include Uninjured Members Cannot Be Approved
An appeal concerning the meaning of coupon settlements under the Class Action Fairness Act instead produced an important opinion, Drazen v. Pinto, 2022 LEXIS 20766 (11th Cir. July 27, 2022), addressing the certification of classes that are defined to include members who have not been injured. Some background may be helpful in understanding the ruling….
Divided Panel Denies Petition to Appeal Sua Sponte Remand to State Court
In Ruhlen v. Holiday Haven Homeowners, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6184 (11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2022), a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit held that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a district court’s sua sponte remand to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The underlying dispute concerned the presence or absence…
General Statistical Evidence of “Local Controversy” Held Insufficient for Jurisdiction Under Class Action Fairness Act
Can class-action plaintiffs avoid federal court by relying on general economic studies and population statistics to prove that their case should be in state court? Not in the Eleventh Circuit. In Smith v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 2021 WL 939184 (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), the court held that “studies, surveys, and census data—which do…
Foundry Employees’ Action is a “Mass Action” Subject to Removal Under the Class Action Fairness Act
The Eleventh Circuit has clarified the scope of the “local event exception” to the federal-court jurisdiction over “mass actions” conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), holding that claims by former foundry employees against manufacturers and distributors of products used at the foundry are not within the exception. Spencer v. Specialty Foundry Prods. Inc.,…
Class Action Seeking Reinstatement of Life Insurance Policies Was Properly Removed to Federal Court
In Anderson v. Wilco Life Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6242199 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2019), the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s order remanding to state court a putative class action against a life insurance company. The case had been properly removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), the appeals court held, because the…
SCOTUS Business Cases This Term (Part 1 – Class Actions)
The Supreme Court’s October term is underway, and the Court has before it several class-action cases. Frank v. Gaos concerns the permissibility of cy pres relief in class action settlements; Home Depot v. Jackson the ability of a defendant in the original action to remove the action under CAFA; and Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert the availability of equitable exceptions to…
Survey of 2017 Eleventh Circuit Decisions Published
The Mercer Law Review recently published its annual survey of noteworthy Eleventh Circuit decisions. The Class Actions article, authored by our own Tom Byrne and Stacey Mohr, analyzes the court’s 2017 decisions on CAFA jurisdiction, the impact of arbitration agreements on class actions, the preclusive effect of prior actions, class action settlements, and class certification disputes….
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….
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…