Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Supreme Court Issues Key Class-Action Decision
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 3, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a key decision on class-action lawsuits. The case, Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, involved the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million in sum or value.
The law aims to ensure that large class-action lawsuits are decided in federal court and to deter abuse of the class-action process in state courts. To accomplish this goal, when more than $5 million is at stake, the CAFA allows class actions to be removed to federal court, giving defendants the benefit of federal procedural protections.
The Facts of the Case
The question before the Supreme Court was whether a corporate defendant can be forced to litigate in state court if the plaintiff offers a stipulation purporting to waive any recovery above the $5 million threshold on behalf of not only the named plaintiff but any future class members.
In Standard Fire Insurance Co v. Knowles, the complaint was accompanied by an affidavit that included the following language: “I do not now, and will not at any time during this case, whether it be removed, remanded, or otherwise . . . seek damages for the class as alleged in the complaint to which this stipulation is attached in excess of $5,000,000 in the aggregate (inclusive of costs and attorneys’ fees). I understand that this stipulation is binding, and it is my intent to be bound by it.”
The Supreme Court’s Decision
In a unanimous opinion, the justices concluded that the stipulation stating that the class would seek less than five million dollars in damages did not defeat federal jurisdiction under the CAFA.
As explained by the Court in a brief opinion, the precertification stipulation can tie Knowles’ hands because stipulations are binding on the party who makes them. However, it cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified. “Because Knowles lacked authority to concede the amount in controversy for absent class members, the District Court wrongly concluded that his stipulation could overcome its finding that the CAFA jurisdictional threshold had been met,” the Court concluded.
The decision is good news for businesses. Groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, had argued that allowing damages stipulations to defeat federal jurisdiction would encourage the same forum-shopping that Congress intended to stop by enacting CAFA.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Supreme Court Issues Key Class-Action Decision
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a key decision on class-action lawsuits. The case, Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, involved the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million in sum or value.
The law aims to ensure that large class-action lawsuits are decided in federal court and to deter abuse of the class-action process in state courts. To accomplish this goal, when more than $5 million is at stake, the CAFA allows class actions to be removed to federal court, giving defendants the benefit of federal procedural protections.
The Facts of the Case
The question before the Supreme Court was whether a corporate defendant can be forced to litigate in state court if the plaintiff offers a stipulation purporting to waive any recovery above the $5 million threshold on behalf of not only the named plaintiff but any future class members.
In Standard Fire Insurance Co v. Knowles, the complaint was accompanied by an affidavit that included the following language: “I do not now, and will not at any time during this case, whether it be removed, remanded, or otherwise . . . seek damages for the class as alleged in the complaint to which this stipulation is attached in excess of $5,000,000 in the aggregate (inclusive of costs and attorneys’ fees). I understand that this stipulation is binding, and it is my intent to be bound by it.”
The Supreme Court’s Decision
In a unanimous opinion, the justices concluded that the stipulation stating that the class would seek less than five million dollars in damages did not defeat federal jurisdiction under the CAFA.
As explained by the Court in a brief opinion, the precertification stipulation can tie Knowles’ hands because stipulations are binding on the party who makes them. However, it cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified. “Because Knowles lacked authority to concede the amount in controversy for absent class members, the District Court wrongly concluded that his stipulation could overcome its finding that the CAFA jurisdictional threshold had been met,” the Court concluded.
The decision is good news for businesses. Groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, had argued that allowing damages stipulations to defeat federal jurisdiction would encourage the same forum-shopping that Congress intended to stop by enacting CAFA.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.