Miscellaneous

Eleventh Circuit Reverses Its Previous (Erroneous and Widely Criticized) Interpretation of CAFA

?On July 19, 2010, we issued an opinion in this case. Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., No. 09-14107, slip op. (11th Cir. July 19, 2010). We based our decision on our interpretation of the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (?CAFA?), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.), which we have elsewhere called a ?statutory labyrinth.? Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1199 (11th Cir.2007). Subsequent reflection has led us to conclude that our interpretation was incorrect. Specifically, CAFA's text does not require at least one plaintiff in a class action to meet the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, we construe both parties' petitions for rehearing en banc to include petitions for panel rehearing, FN1 vacate our earlier opinion, and replace it with this one.? Cappucciti v. DirecTV, Inc., 2010 WL 4027719 (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2010).

Full post as published by Federal Civil Practice Bulletin on October 19, 2010 (boomark / email).