The FTC’s Rule Banning Non-Compete Agreements | What You Need to Know
The Chartwell Chronicles: Florida Workers' Compensation
The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Caselaw Updates
The Maritime Anti-Corruption Network: An In-Depth Conversation
Policyholders vs. Insurers: 3 Arguments to Make When Selecting Defense Counsel & Hourly Rates
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: The Mechanics of Multidistrict Litigation: Streamlining Complex Cases
The Chartwell Chronicles: Medical Provider Claims
A General Overview of Maryland Workers' Compensation
Elements and Defenses to Claim Petitions
NGE On Demand: The (Dilatory) Forum Defendant Rule and Snap Removal with Nick Graber
Redefining Personal Jurisdiction: SCOTUS rules on the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 19]
Workers' Compensation Academy: 2020: A Unique Year in Many Ways Including Changes in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 263: Listen and Learn -- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Issues, Venue, and Jurisdiction by Kristhy Peguero and Jennifer Wertz
Podcast: CFIUS Update: Key Takeaways from the FIRRMA Implementing Regulations
Episode 116 -- Alstom Executive Convicted of FCPA and Money Laundering Offenses
[WEBINAR] Planning in the Coastal Zone
New anti-abuse provisions
Meritas Capability Webinar - Controlling Where to Fight and Who Pays for it?
When a class action is filed in state court, most defendants first evaluate whether the case can be removed to federal court. The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) offers a broader avenue to remove cases to federal court than...more
On November 27, a landmark PFAS decision by the Sixth Circuit effectively dismissed a statewide class action for lack of standing. This potentially sets the stage for a new era of PFAS litigation, where historically general...more
In the case of Drazen v. Pinto, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc ruled unanimously that plaintiffs who received a single unwanted telemarketing text message suffered a concrete injury. In 2019, Susan...more
Federal district court orders remanding cases to state court are generally not appealable, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). One exception to this is that the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) allows a court of appeals, in...more
Takeaway: The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) provides class action defendants with the means to secure federal jurisdiction over putative class actions filed in state court, as well as a mechanism to appeal decisions by...more
A recent Eleventh Circuit decision on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) caught my eye. It involves the kind of question legislators (and their staffs) probably never think about when drafting a statute. Law professors...more
Takeaway: Class defendants prefer federal court. In any putative class action filed in state court, the first issue to analyze is whether the case can be removed to federal court, and any such analysis typically involves...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: “Objector blackmail” occurs in the class settlement approval process when a few class members object to a proposed settlement and, after the district court has overruled their objections, pursue appeals...more
While a war rages on the issue of standing in data breach cases, the need to prove damages is presenting an even greater hurdle for plaintiffs, as we have noted previously. One clear illustration of this trend is Attias v....more
A defendant by any other name does not smell as sweet when it comes to removing class actions from state court to federal court, even under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Congress passed CAFA to address...more
The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Parties Entitled to Seek Removal of Class Action Claims Under CAFA - In a recent decision addressing federal court jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that third-party counterclaim...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more
From the class action defense perspective, companies and counsel alike are almost always looking for an angle to move a state-filed putative class action to the more rigorous environment of the federal courts. Congress...more
In Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471 (May 28, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions have authority under the general removal...more
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that third-party defendants in state court actions cannot remove...more
To the surprise of many observers (including us), the Supreme Court held last week in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson that a third-party defendant could not remove class action claims – under either the general removal...more
On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas that a third-party counterclaim defendant was not permitted to remove class action claims against it under the general removal statute, 28...more
On May 28, the Supreme Court decided Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson, 17-1471 (2019), ruling 5–4 that third-party counterclaim defendants may not remove class actions from state to federal court. The decision, besides keeping in...more
It has long been established that a state-court plaintiff who is the subject of a counterclaim cannot remove the case to federal court. ...more
On May 28, 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas — joined by unlikely allies Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan — wrote the 5-4 majority opinion holding that third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions do not...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Defendants can remove lawsuits filed in state courts to federal courts if they meet the statutory requirements for removal under either 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or the Class Action Fairness Act. In Home Depot U....more
The Lede - As Congress appreciated when it enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), large, multistate class actions are better suited for federal courts, not state ones. Following that logic, the Supreme Court...more
The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a counterclaim defendant’s attempt to remove a would-be class action to federal court, holding that even where that defendant, Home Depot, was not an original plaintiff, there was no right...more
The Supreme Court recently clarified that third-party counterclaim defendants — parties who were not defendants in the original action, but were brought in as third-party defendants by virtue of the original defendant’s...more
On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471, holding that neither the general federal removal statute nor the removal provision in the Class Action Fairness...more