ABM V. CASTRO
Issue: Class Action Certification Standards
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Lower Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
I. Is an action brought under a state law authorizing a plaintiff to pursue claims on behalf of absent persons and to obtain a judgment binding them a “class action” as defined by 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1)(B)?
II. In an action that asserts both “class” and purportedly “non-class” representative claims on behalf of the same group of absent persons, are the representative claims “claims of the individual class members” that “shall be aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds...$5,000,000” under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(6)?
The RLC joined the US Chamber of Commerce amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in order to resolve the critical question of whether the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) applies to representative actions brought under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). PAGA actions are comparable to class actions in all important respects and, thus, should be subject to removal safeguards under CAFA. Holding otherwise would allow plaintiffs to circumvent federal jurisdiction and class certification requirements in large-scale and nationally significant class action cases.
The Court denied the petition.
Procedural History and Case Documents:
- Petition for certiorari filed May 2016.
- Petition denied October 2016