JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Supreme Court rules on class action jurisdiction issue
Jaimie Cremeans at 1:19 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles [SCOTUS backgrounder] that a stipulation by one member of a class in a class action to keep damages below $5 million does not, for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, bind the whole class. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 [text, PDF] provides that class actions can only be removed to federal court for diversity purposes if the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5 million and that the "claims of the individual class members shall be aggregated." In this case, Greg Knowles, who originally filed this action against the Standard Fire Insurance Company, stated in his complaint that he and the class as a whole stipulated they would not seek damages of $5 million or more. The court ruled, however, that this stipulation by Knowles could not bind the class as a whole "because a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified." The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas [official website], which originally sought to bind the class by Knowles' stipulation, and remanded it to that court for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court agreed [JURIST report] in September to hear this case during this term. The US Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit had previously declined to hear [Cornell LII backgrounder] the appeal, and subsequently decided Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc. [opinion, text], in which it affirmed another district court's decision to deny jurisdiction based on stipulations similar to the one at issue in Standard Fire. The Supreme Court's ruling follows a case decided in 2011, Smith v. Bayer Corp. [opinion, JURIST report], in which the court ruled that unless a court has officially created a class, a person attempting to create a class does not represent the interests of all potential class members.




Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Malaysia authorities seize newspapers, detain opposition activists
12:34 PM ET, May 23

 Member of feminist rock group Pussy Riot denied parole
11:56 AM ET, May 23

 Egypt court acquits police officers accused of killing protester
11:39 AM ET, May 23

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org