Originally published February 11, 2010
Keywords: Class Action Fairness Act, CAFA, class certification, Cunningham Charter
In Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., __ F. 3d __, 2010 WL 199627 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2010), the Seventh Circuit has ruled that federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5), does not depend on whether the class is certified. In so holding, the Seventh Circuit joins the Eleventh Circuit's view in Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (2009), and tacitly rejects the Second Circuit's position in County of Nassau v. Hotels.com, 577 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2009).
In Cunningham, the Seventh Circuit panel reversed a district court's order remanding a putative class action to state court. The district court had reasoned that its denial of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification eliminated federal jurisdiction under CAFA. In an opinion authored by Judge Posner, the panel explained that such a remand would run afoul of "the general principle that jurisdiction once properly invoked is not lost by developments after a suit is filed." The panel noted, however, that if the plaintiff's class allegations were completely frivolous, the district court could remand on that ground.
When the class allegations are not frivolous, however, the panel explained that remand could undermine the policies underlying CAFA. If, after remand, the state court were to grant a renewed motion to certify the class, Congress's intent to have such lawsuits proceed in federal court under the federal rules would be undermined. To be sure, if the state court were to certify a class, the case would then become removable under CAFA. But because "litigation is not ping-pong," the panel reasoned that retaining federal jurisdiction over these cases is more efficient than shuttling them back and forth between state and federal court.
Learn more about our Consumer Litigation & Class Actions practice, or contact John Nadolenco, Lucia Nale, or Archis Parasharami.
Learn more about our Supreme Court & Appellate practice, or contact Lauren Goldman, David Gossett, Jeffrey Sarles, or Evan Tager.
Visit us at www.mayerbrown.com.
Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities ("Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; and JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The Mayer Brown Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
Copyright 2010. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown International LLP, and/or JSM. All rights reserved.
