Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that CAFA’s requirement of 100 or more plaintiffs refers only to actual, named plaintiffs
• noting that “CAFA’s class action provisions are completely silent” about claim splitting to avoid the jurisdictional amount
• rejecting “the general proposition that plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot ‘game’ the system by artificially structuring their suits so as to avoid CAFA jurisdiction” in the context of CAFA’s “mass action” provisions
• plaintiffs filed actions containing fewer than 100 plaintiffs but aggregating to more than 100 plaintiffs, but neither plaintiffs nor the state court had proposed consolidating the actions for trial; CAFA jurisdiction absent
• plaintiffs filed actions containing fewer than 100 plaintiffs but aggregating to more than 100 plaintiffs, but neither plaintiffs nor the state court had proposed consolidating the actions for trial; CAFA jurisdiction absent
• “In this case, concluding that plaintiffs’ claims fall outside CAFA’s removal provisions is not absurd, but rather is consistent with ... the well-established rule that plaintiffs, as masters of their complaint, may choose their forum by selecting state over federal court.:..”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).