Important CAFA Decision (Seventh Circuit (Posner, J.)): "Litigation is not Ping-Pong"

Minnesota Litigator wanders outside of Minnesota and Eighth Circuit jurisprudence from time to time for important decisions in sister circuits, neighboring states, or the U.S. Supreme Court and a recent decision out of the Seventh Circuit warrants mention.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 made it easier to get class action litigation into federal courts because of a perceived problem with “judicial hellholes,” or pockets of plaintiff-friendly state court venues where large corporations were thought to be “held up” based on meritless claims.

What happens when a class action is brought in state court, is removed to federal court, and then, on a motion for class certification, the U.S. district court denies the motion for class certification?  Remand to state court?  (If so, does the plaintiff get to move for class certification again, under state law this time?)  More following the break…

Judge Posner held:

We assumed in Bullard v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry., 535 F.3d 759, 762 (7th Cir. 2008), that federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act does not depend on certification, and we now join Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 n. 12 (11th Cir. 2009), in so holding. Cf. In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 564 F.3d 489, 492-93 (1st Cir. 2009). That is the better interpretation, see G. Shaun Richardson, “Class Dismissed, Now What? Exploring the Exercise of CAFA Jurisdiction After the Denial of Class Certification,” 39 New Mex. L. Rev. 121, 135 (2009); Kevin M. Clermont, “Jurisdictional Fact,” 91 Cornell L. Rev. 973, 1015-17 (2006)