Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> Class Action Defense Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Class Action
: Class Action Defense BlogCAFA Class Action Defense Cases–Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren: California Federal Court Denies Motion To Remand Class Action To State Court Holding Defense Established Class Action Alleging Song-Beverly Act Violations Involved More Than $5 Million
By Michael J. Hassen
Defense Evidence in Support of Removal of Class Action to Federal Court Adequately Established Removal Jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) California Federal Court Holds
Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in California state court against Polo Ralph Lauren alleging violations of California?s Song-Beverly Act; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendant requested personal information from customers as part of credit card transactions in violation of California Civil Code § 1747.08. Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1202 (E.D. Cal. 2008). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court alleging removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); plaintiffs moved to remand the class action to state court on the grounds that defendant failed to establish the requisite diversity or amount in controversy. Id. As the district court explained, ?CAFA grants district courts original jurisdiction over civil class actions filed under federal or state law in which any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant and the amount in controversy for the putative class members in the aggregate exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.? Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)). The district court refused to remand the class action to state court, holding that defendant sufficiently established CAFA removal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff first argued that Polo Ralph Lauren did not establish that it was not a citizen of California, Korn, at 1201; the district court rejected this argument, noting that plaintiff is bound by the judicial admission in his complaint that defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, id., at 1203. Accordingly, the federal court held plaintiff ?bound by the allegations in his complaint that assert defendant's citizenship, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, is in Delaware and New Jersey.? Id. Plaintiff next argued that the defense failed to establish the $5,000,000 amount in controversy requirement. Id., at 1201. While the class action complaint did not seek a specific amount of damages, the district court observed that the class action seeks ?statutory civil penalties for the alleged violations [of] up to $1000 per violation.? Id., at 1202. Further, as part of the documentation supporting removal of the class action to federal court, defense attorneys had submitted a declaration establishing that Polo Ralph Lauren had ?processed more than 5,000 credit card transactions over the last year in the state of California.? Id. The district court held that this was sufficient.
Full post as published by Class Action Defense Blog on May 21, 2008 (boomark / email).
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Self Defense
It's legal to defend yourself and your family
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Talent Agency, Be Productions, Faces Federal Class Action
California Talent Agency, Be Productions, Faces Federal Class Action
Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.
Taylor Bean Faces Federal WARN Class Action
Taylor Bean Federal Employment Class Action Filed
Seattle Mortgage Co Faces California Class Action
Seattle Mortgage Co Faces California Class Action
Class Action Filed Over Incontinence Briefs
Arizona Health Care Faces Federal Class Action over Incontinence Briefs
Morgan Drexen Faces Potential Federal Class Action
Morgan Drexan FAces Potential Class Action

How is the Class Action Fairness Act working
Labor Code Class Actions Consistently Outnumber All Other Categories Combined
Kon to Polo Ralph Lauren: YOUR SHEETS SUCK!









