Breakman v. AOL LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the non-aggregation principle applies when calculating the amount in controversy in representative suits
• holding that “[b]ecause this Court strictly construes the scope of its removal jurisdiction, and because the non-aggregation principle logically should extend to claims of attorneys’ fees ... attorneys’ fees should be apportioned among all of the consumer plaintiffs”
• holding that “[b]ecause this Court strictly construes the scope of its removal jurisdiction, and because the non-aggregation principle logically should extend to claims of attorneys’ fees . . . attorneys’ fees should be apportioned 13 among all of the consumer plaintiffs”
• recognizing a “strong presumption” that a complaint filed in state court does not allege an amount in controversy sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction (citation omitted)
• explaining that the attorney’s fees cited by defendant could not be credited because “the amount recoverable is based on pure conjecture”
• finding that attorneys’ fees were hot sufficient to establish that $76,000 was in controversy because defendant’s “argument relating to the amount recoverable is based on pure conjecture.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).