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

CAFA Stole Their Lunch Money and Ran!

ADVERTISEMENTS

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Concophillips, No. CV 08-2068PSG(FFMx), 2009 WL 1652975 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2009).

Never underestimate the allure of the lunch lady. USW union workers filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the defendant skimped on lunch periods in violation of California law. The defendants tried removal based on CAFA, but CAFA stole their lunch money and ran. 

On motion for remand, the hungry plaintiffs argued that CAFA jurisdiction failed because the Court had denied their class certification. Further, the amount in controversy requirement was not satisfied and the case did not involve 100 class members. 

Setting out the CAFA jurisdiction standard, the Court explained that there was no 'reasonably foreseeable possibility' that the plaintiffs' class would be certified since they had already made two unsuccessful attempts at certification. The Court explained, ' a determination that class certification is not a ‘reasonably foreseeable possibility' is not a post-removal change in jurisdictional facts, but rather equivalent to finding that jurisdiction never existed under CAFA in the first place.' 

Next, the defendant, perhaps on an empty stomach, tried removal based on supplemental and diversity jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims even if the federal claims having original jurisdiction had been dismissed. The defendant's argument, however, failed since there were never any federal claims asserted in the lawsuit.

Finally, the defendant argued that complete diversity existed. The Court denied this argument since, for diversity purposes, the citizenship of a union is the citizenship of all of its members. Removal failed and longer lunches prevailed.

Full post as published by CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on August 18, 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!






0.0029 secs (from cache 10/31/26 07:07:58)