New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

CAFA’s Discretionary Jurisdiction Exception — Declining Jurisdiction Where More Than 1/3 of All Plaintiff Classes and Primary Defendants Are Citizens of the Forum State

Download PDF

From Bowen v. Houser, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10870 (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2011):

Plaintiffs contend that the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction in this case under § 1332(d)(3). ***Title 28 United States Code, Section 1332(d)(3) provides:

[a] district court may, in the interest of justice and looking at the totality of the circumstances, decline jurisdiction . . . over a class action in which greater than one-third . . . of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed based on consideration of [a number of factors].

*** Thus, CAFA's discretionary jurisdiction exception requires that more than one-third of the class members and the primary defendants be citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. In addition, in looking at the totality of the circumstances, courts consider several factors in exercising its discretion to remand including: 1) "whether the claims asserted involve matters of national or interstate interest;" 2) "whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws of the State in which the action was originally filed or by the laws of other States;" 3) "whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction;" 4) "whether the action was brought in a forum with a distinct nexus with the class members, the alleged harm, or the defendants;" 5) "whether the number of citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed in all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other State, and the citizenship of the other members of the proposed class is dispersed among a substantial number of States; and" 6) "whether, during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, 1 or more other class actions asserting the same or similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been filed." Id. The parties agree that more than one-third of the proposed class and all of Defendants are citizens of South Carolina. *** Therefore, the court will consider the interests of justice and the totality of the circumstances in determining whether this case should be remanded to state court.

With regard to the first discretionary factor (the national interest factor), this case does not necessarily involve the interpretation of federal law, specifically the National Bank Act. The claims in this case are state law claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, which are governed by state law. Therefore, the national interest factor supports remand. The second discretionary factor (the state law governance factor), also supports remand. South Carolina law, as opposed to the laws of other states will apply because Plaintiffs' claims are based on events that occurred in South Carolina. The third discretionary factor (the federal jurisdiction avoidance factor), weighs in favor of remand because there is no evidence that this case was pleaded to avoid federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs could have restricted the amount in controversy to under $5,000,000 if they intended to avoid federal jurisdiction, but they did not do so. See S.C. R. Civ. P. 8 (". . . a party may plead that the total amount in controversy shall not exceed a stated sum which shall limit the claim for all purposes."); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 294 (1938) (a plaintiff can "resort to the expedient of suing for less than the jurisdictional amount, and though he would be justly entitled to more, the defendant cannot remove."). The fourth discretionary factor (the nexus factor), supports remand because a large portion of the potential class is from South Carolina, all of the class members purchased stock in a bank that only has branches in South Carolina, and all of the Defendants are South Carolina citizens. The fifth discretionary factor (the forum citizenship factor) is neutral because the court does not have information on the citizenship of all of the class members to make the necessary determination. The sixth discretionary factor weighs in favor of remand because Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs' contention that no other similar class actions have been filed within the past three years. Based upon the foregoing, the court exercises its discretion to remand this case to state court.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice