ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Class Action

: CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

Forget What You've Learned, Three is NOT the Magical Number; $5 Million is.

ADVERTISEMENTS

Deehan v. Amerigas Partners, L.P., No. 3:08-cv-01009, 2008 WL 4104475 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2008).

What happens when you mix over 14,000 class members each with a minimum claim of $500? Well, you get CAFA jurisdiction, of course!! When Amerigas removed this action to federal court under CAFA, the plaintiff apparently forgot everything he learned on Schoolhouse Rock and tried to remand the case back to state court.

 

 Oh come on, we know our loyal readers remember Schoolhouse Rock.

I'm just a bill.

Yes, I'm only a bill.

And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.

Well, it's a long, long journey

To the capital city.

It's a long, long wait

While I'm sitting in committee,

But I know I'll be a law some day

At least I hope and pray that I will

But today I am still just a bill.

 

 

 

 And in case that wasn't enough to get stuck in your head for the rest of the day, how about:

As your body grows bigger,

Your mind must flower

It's great to learn,

'Cuz knowledge is power!

It's Schoolhouse Rocky,

A chip off the block

Of your favorite schoolhouse;

Schoolhouse Rock!

 

But we digress.

In Deehan, the plaintiff gathered together a class of approximately 14,082 members and sued Amerigas in California state court for not accurately reading propane meters and overcharging the putative class members. Amerigas removed the action and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand.

But the court was two steps ahead of the plaintiff ,and it denied the motion to remand. You see, the plaintiff was seeking recovery under the California Public Utilities Section 2107, and the minimum penalty for each offense under that section is $500. 

After all, doesn’t everyone know that 14,082 x $500 = $7,041,000??

Maybe not, because Schoolhouse Rock didn’t have a song for multiplying by 500…but we can all agree that $7,041,000 is greater than $5,000,000. It looks like knowledge really is power. Thanks, Schoolhouse Rock. Motion to Remand denied. 

Full post as published by CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on January 08, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0212 secs (new cache)