We might not have done a breaking news post about Dart, except for this: In a statement that will be very useful in future CAFA removals, the Court broadly rejected any presumption in favor of remand in CAFA cases – and did not endorse such a presumption in any removal situation:
We need not here decide whether such a presumption is proper in mine-run diversity cases. It suffices to point out that no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court.
Dart, slip op. at 7.
The vote was ostensibly 5-4, but the split decision concerned procedural matters – whether it was appropriate to decide the case (slip op. at 7-14) – rather than disagreement over CAFA requirements. We’ll leave that argument to Supreme Court wonks.
On the issue we care about, none of the justices expressed disagreement with the majority’s analysis.
--
Posted By Bexis to Drug and Device Law at 12/15/2014 12:07:00 PM --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Drug and Device Law" group.
To post to this group, send email to drug-and-device-law@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to drug-and-device-law-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/drug-and-device-law?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Drug and Device Law" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to drug-and-device-law+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment