Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that due to “congressional intent to restrict federal court jurisdiction, as well as the importance of preserving the independence of state governments, federal courts construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability”
• finding that a parens patriae lawsuit brought by a state attorney general is not similar to Rule 23
• holding that the suit was not filed as a “class action” under CAFA because it contained none of the “hallmarks of Rule 23 class actions; namely, adequacy of representation, numerosity, commonality, typicality, or the requirement of class certification”
• holding that the suit was not filed as a “class action” under CAFA because it contained none of the “hallmarks of Rule 23 class actions; namely, adequacy of representation, numerosity, commonality, typicality, or the requirement of class certification”
• explaining that the term “class action” in CAFA should be defined broadly to prevent removal attempts from being thwarted
• explaining that courts must disregard “nominal or formal parties” and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of “real parties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).