Source: https://www.cafalawblog.com/page/2
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:53:25+00:00

Document:
Walsh v. Defenders, Inc, 2018 WL 555690 (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2018).
On a motion for reconsideration, a District Court in New Jersey reversed an earlier ruling denying a motion to remand based on the “local controversy” exception to CAFA. The Court held that, in order to defeat diversity, the local-controversy test does not require a showing of predominance, i.e., that the local defendant’s conduct forms a more significant basis for the claims asserted than the conduct of the other defendants, but merely a showing that the local defendant’s actions formed a significant basis for the claims asserted.
Based in part on new evidence obtained during class discovery, the Court agreed that plaintiff could now establish that the local defendant’s conduct formed a significant basis of the claims asserted by the putative class. Specifically, the Court noted that 35.3% of the entire class entered into the allegedly unlawful contracts with the local defendant and thus had claims arising directly from the local defendant’s conduct. Although this evidence also showed that 64.7% of the class had claims arising from the foreign defendant’s conduct, the Court acknowledged that plaintiff need not demonstrate that the claims against the local defendant predominated over the other defendants; rather, to invoke the exception, the plaintiff must show that the local defendant’s conduct was a significant – defined as ‘important, notable’ – basis for the claims asserted.
Accordingly, the District Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and remanded the action to the state court.
Sanchez v. Ameriflight, LLC, 2018 WL 654170 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2018).
Here, the Ninth Circuit found that where parties were not diverse at the onset of the action, a post-filing change in citizenship cannot cure the original defect in diversity jurisdiction.
Allred v. Kellogg_Company, et al., 2018 WL 332904 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018).
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.
Graiser v. Visionworks of America, Inc., 2016 WL 1359048 (6th Cir. April 6, 2016).
The Sixth Circuit held that the 30-day removal period under CAFA does not begin if the plaintiff does not serve the defendant with an amended complaint, motion, other paper etc. from which a defendant can figure out that the amount-in-controversy exceeds CAFA’s jurisdictional threshold. The Sixth Circuit further held that if a defendant can determine from the documents served by the plaintiff that the amount-in-controversy could exceed $5 million, the defendant is not obligated to do so, unless the document is apparent.
Calmes v. Boca West Country Club, 2017 WL 4621112 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 16, 2017).
A district court in Florida dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) finding that the plaintiff did not satisfy his burden to establish that there were diverse class members or that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.
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.

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