Source: https://www.cafalawblog.com/category/case-summaries
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:50:45+00:00

Document:
McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-cv-00172 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 2018). In this action, while remanding a case to state court, a district court in Missouri found that the plaintiffs’ burden of proof, as the party invoking the local controversy exception, is by a “preponderance” or more than 50% of the evidence.
Robertson v. Sun Life Financial, 2:17-cv-02148-SSV-JVM (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2018) In this action, a Louisiana District Court denied a motion to remand, finding that the Plaintiff’s generic demand for damages from a “local” defendant was insufficient to justify remanding the case pursuant to CAFA’s Local Controversy exception.
Allred v. Kellogg_Company, et al., 2018 WL 332904 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018). A California district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that the statistical assumptions used in the defendant’s amount-in-controversy calculation were permissible under the circumstances.
Carter, et al., v. Westlex Corporation, et al., 2016 WL 1397648 (5th Cir. April 8, 2016). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order retaining jurisdiction over an action where the defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million jurisdictional threshold.
State of New Hampshire v Purdue Pharma, et al., 2018 WL 333824 (D.N.H. Jan. 9, 2018). In this action a New Hampshire district court found that a parens patriae case was not sufficiently similar to a class action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 so as to justify removal under CAFA.
Adams v. Grefer, 636 F. App’x 906 (5th Cir. 2016). The Fifth Circuit affirmed a remand order, finding that amending the complaint to substitute an heir for a deceased plaintiff did not commence a new action for the purposes of CAFA.
Bell v. Gateway Energy Services Corporation et al., 2017 WL 5956887 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017). In this action, while granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court in New York found that in absence of direct business relationship, customers cannot arraign a corporation as a defendant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.