Congress enacted CAFA [the Class Action Fairness Act] in order to amend the procedures that apply to consideration of interstate class actions. In doing so, Congress recognized that class action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system. It was concerned, however, that certain requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, had functioned to keep cases of national importance in state courts rather than federal courts. Miss. ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736, 739 (2014). People v. Intelligender, LLC, (9th Cir. 2014)
The Senate stated its concerns more bluntly: "[M]ost class actions are currently adjudicated in state courts, where the governing rules are applied inconsistently (frequently in a manner that contravenes basic fairness and due process considerations) and where there is often inadequate supervision over litigation procedures and proposed settlements." In an effort to curb these perceived abuses, Congress loosened the requirements for diversity jurisdiction by adding 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), which "replaced the ordinary requirement of complete diversity of citizenship among all plaintiffs and defendants. [Citations omitted.] People v. Intelligender, LLC, ibid.
The text of CAFA states that federal jurisdiction will extend to class actions with minimal diversity and at least $5,000,000 in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). [Minimal diversity means "any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A) Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F. 3d 771 (8th Cir. 2014)]. The statute defines class action as any civil action filed under Rule 23 or a state class action statute. Id. at § 1332(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Thus, federal jurisdiction under the statutory provision of CAFA is explicitly concerned with the status of an action when filed — not how it subsequently evolves. Louisiana v. American Nat. Property Cas. Co., 746 F. 3d 633 (5th Cir. 2014)
[T]he language, structure, and history of CAFA all "demonstrate that Congress contemplated broad federal court jurisdiction with only narrow exceptions." Evans v. Walter Indus., 449 F.3d 1159, 1164 (11th Cir. 2006)(citation omitted). Cedar Lodge Plantation, LLC v. CSHV Fairway View I, LLC, (5th Cir. 2014)
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 45 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. The selection of decisions spans from January 2012 to the date of publication.