December 19, 2014
By Space Coast Daily
By Space Coast Daily
Rejecting a request by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (click here) to maintain a judge’s stay that would have kept same-sex couples from marrying in the state, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriages to begin in Florida next month.
The stay was a result of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle, who said in August that Florida’s 2008 ban is unconstitutional....
Another decision by the court regarding Class Actions. My initial reaction is to realize not all class actions are federal (invoking interstate laws) and the States should have some authority in such cases. This decision removes states from asserting their laws that come to bear.
Plausible allegation us grounds to transfer to a federal court? Why bother with state laws and state courts? Whatever.
December 19, 2014
By Kimberly Robertson
...the court “held that, when a defendant files a notice that a case is being removed to federal court from state court, it is enough to allege in the notice that the case involves over $5 million in controversy, which is one of the key requirements for removal under CAFA.”
“The defendant does not have to submit evidence in support of the removal unless the plaintiff later seeks to return the case to state court,” Parasharami said....
The question is whether or not the defendant can bring evidence within 30 days. Change it to 60 if that is the case. I can't imagine a state or appellate court denying any extension with reasonable request to that effect.
It sounds like this creates a circus of motions by the plaintiffs.
Another decision by the court regarding Class Actions. My initial reaction is to realize not all class actions are federal (invoking interstate laws) and the States should have some authority in such cases. This decision removes states from asserting their laws that come to bear.
Plausible allegation us grounds to transfer to a federal court? Why bother with state laws and state courts? Whatever.
December 19, 2014
By Kimberly Robertson
Dec. 15 — It just got easier (click here) for class action defendants to have their cases heard in federal court, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA after a U.S. Supreme Court decision Dec. 15 that raised issues under the Class Action Fairness Act.
A defendant need include only a “plausible allegation” of the jurisdictional requirements in a notice of removal to federal court—not evidentiary proof, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.
The case involved a relatively straight-forward question of what must be included in a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b), but hit what Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion called “a little snag: This case does not present that question.”
A procedural obstacle first brought to the fore after briefing by a “friend of the court” divided the justices, in the court's first 5-4 decision of the 2014 term.
Pro-Business Decision
“The Supreme Court's decision today is welcome news for businesses that face class actions in state court and seek to transfer them to federal court under the federal Class Action Fairness Act,” Archis A. Parasharami of Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, said in a statement e-mailed to Bloomberg BNA....
...the court “held that, when a defendant files a notice that a case is being removed to federal court from state court, it is enough to allege in the notice that the case involves over $5 million in controversy, which is one of the key requirements for removal under CAFA.”
“The defendant does not have to submit evidence in support of the removal unless the plaintiff later seeks to return the case to state court,” Parasharami said....
The question is whether or not the defendant can bring evidence within 30 days. Change it to 60 if that is the case. I can't imagine a state or appellate court denying any extension with reasonable request to that effect.
It sounds like this creates a circus of motions by the plaintiffs.
