We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

James A. Comodeca Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 12



The Seventh Circuit reiterates that subsequent procedural events do not alter the removability of the case which instead is based on circumstances as of the date the suit is filed *

USA - January 12 2012
In Morrison v. YTB International Inc., 649 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011), the plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action in federal court on behalf of all those who had participated in the defendant’s home-travel-agency program.

Co-authors: M. Gabrielle Hils.


The Fifth Circuit dismisses a case originally filed in federal court because CAFA’s home state and local controversy exceptions apply *

USA - January 12 2012
In Hollinger v. Home State Mutual Insurance Co., 654 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2011), the plaintiffs brought a class action in federal court based on CAFA diversity jurisdiction against several county mutual insurance companies alleging violation of the Texas Insurance Code.

Co-authors: M. Gabrielle Hils.


Following the legal certainty test, the Second Circuit vacates a district court’s dismissal of a class action complaint for failure to establish CAFA’s amount in controversy *

USA - January 12 2012
Bank v. Hydra Group LLC, 433 Fed. Appx. 50 (2nd Cir. 2011), involved an appeal from the sua sponte dismissal of a class action complaint.

Co-authors: M. Gabrielle Hils.


The Seventh Circuit holds that dismissal of claims against the removing defendant does not deprive the court of CAFA jurisdiction *

USA - January 12 2012
In Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial of a motion to remand in a CAFA removal case.

Co-authors: M. Gabrielle Hils.


The Seventh Circuit reinstates two remanded cases, explaining the “legally impossible” standard as it relates to calculating the amount in controversy under CAFA *

USA - January 12 2012
In ABM Security Services, Inc. v. Davis, 646 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2011), the defendant appealed the remand of a putative class action filed by employees for alleged violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Co-authors: M. Gabrielle Hils.


Next »