Judge Tjoflat: "I Was Wron......"

There's a surprising lack of internet information regarding Fonzie from Happy Days' inability to say "I was wrong."

Here's the best link I could come up with, which isn't much.

But if you watch the above clip starting around 1:45, you'll remember what I mean.

Anyways, Judge Tjoflat overcame his inner Fonzie and admitted he just was flat-out wrong about CAFA jurisdiction, reversing himself in a widely-criticized opinion that was the subject of much tsurris in the district courts:

There is no requirement in a class action brought originally or on removal under CAFA that any individual plaintiff’s claim exceed $75,000.

 There, was that so hard?


"These days are yours and mine, Happy Days!"

The 11th Circuit Creates A Removable Feast?

Continuing with our literary theme, today is Ernest Hemingway's birthday!

Also, the 11th Circuit really went astray with its latest CAFA ruling:

We hold that in a CAFA action originally filed in federal court, at least one of the plaintiffs must allege an amount in controversy that satisfies the current congressional requirement for diversity jurisdiction provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Such a conclusion is compelled by the language of § 1332 as well as the general principle that federal courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction whose power to hear cases must be authorized by the Constitution and by Congress.

I love Judge Tjoflat, and the decision has some surface appeal, but it is almost assuredly wrong.

Although the Court looked for an express statement that section 1332(a) did not apply in CAFA cases and could not find it, there is also nothing stating that the requirements of (a) do apply.

Further, there is no reasoned basis for restricting the result to original jurisdiction cases as opposed to removed cases. Thus, removed cases presumably must meet the same requirements as a class case with "original jurisdiction."

Finally, the citation to the Ninth Circuit case (Abrego) is inapposite, as that case involved a "mass" action, not a "class" action. CAFA expressly restricts removal jurisdiction for mass actions to those plaintiffs who meet the $75k requirement.

But doesn't the contrast between that explicit reference and the silence in the provisions relating to class actions indicate that the 11th Circuit got this one severely wrong?

I'm gonna go re-read Papa's Death in the Afternoon again.

Taking Google Scholar Out For A Test Drive.

Ok, let's get Rothstein out of the way:

John Pacenti and the Herald report on how Scott allegedly bilked this investor just weeks before he took off for Morocco.

The purported "investment opportunity" is insultingly stupid:

The deal offered a return of eight percent per month for the following four months. It involved a purported lawsuit against California-based Dole, which Faulkner said had settled for $500 million in the face of accusations that it had overstated the percentage of pineapple in juices it sold to school districts.

So this is a secret whistleblower action -- possibly unfiled -- in which Dole forks over a half billion over mislabeling the content of its pineapple juice? And for some reason Dole wants to pay this half billion out over time?

In what imaginary world do cases like this exist?

But you know, the kids still got some juice and that's the important thing.

Oy what a goyisher kup.

But Scottie says he doesn't know this particular investor and I for one believe him:

"I keep seeing names on the Internet who were alleged investors of me and I have no idea who they are,'' Rothstein told The Herald on Thursday. "There are sublayers of people doing very, very bad things to people in my name, so we shall see.''

"Not that I didn't do something wrong, and I'm back here to fix it,'' he said. "I made a decision to come back from Morocco and do the right thing. I know people are laughing and saying he can't repay these people, and they are wrong.''

Marc, why is your client still giving interviews to the Herald?

Also Scott, people are not laughing over whether you can repay the investors -- there's plenty of other things about this fiasco to laugh about, believe me.

Alright, let's move on.

So two lawyers at Mayer Brown recently wrote about County of Nassau v. Hotels.com, where the 2d Circuit raised the issue of CAFA jurisdiction nostra sponte (take that, Latin nerds!) and remanded the case to the district court "to determine whether class certification is appropriate" in order to determine whether CAFA jurisdiction exists.

That's just a bizarre ruling, and these Mayer Brown lawyers agree. Their well-written article is here.

To learn more, I went ahead and tried to pull up the 2d Circuit opinion on Google Scholar and found it quite easily and for free.

Your move, oh Lexis lady.