The New Jersey Law Journal recently published an article I wrote, entitled "Justices Make Procedural Requirements for Removal Under CAFA Entertaining," on an important Supreme Court decision involving a procedural issue under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Here is the first paragraph:
The big news on the opening day of the Supreme Court's 2014 term was the court's decision not to review several circuit-court decisions on same-sex marriage. A much lower-profile case was argued a few days later—Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company v. Owens. While that case lacked the media attention of the same-sex marriage cases and some of the other high-profile cases of the term, it resolved a crucial issue for class-action plaintiffs and defendants. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), a defendant seeking to remove a case to federal court is not required to include evidence supporting its amount-in-controversy allegation in its notice of removal. Although an unquestionably important decision for practitioners, what makes Owens interesting is the battle between Justice Ginsburg, the author of the majority opinion, and her friend, Justice Scalia, the author of the dissent.
To read the rest of the article — which, I promise, is not as boring as the subject matter might suggest — click here.