Class Action Fairness Act — Burden of Proof

On December 26, 2006, the Second Circuit joined the Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh in concluding that the defendant bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. It also remanded to the District Court for explicit findings as to how it calculated reasonably probable damages, given that the $5 million aggregated amount in controversy is jurisdictional. See Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 31757 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2006). Compare Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir. 2005); Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 686 (9th Cir. 2006); Evans v. Walter Indus., 449 F.3d 1159, 1164 (11th Cir. 2006). (GPJ)

Share this article:


Recent Posts