Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that parens patriae actions are not class actions because they “lack statutory requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, or adequacy of representation that would make them sufficiently ‘similar’ to actions brought under Rule 23”
• rejecting the argument that “liberally” defining “class action” required finding that a suit that had some resemblance to a class action was a CAFA “class action”
• rejecting the argument that “liberally” defining “class action” required finding that a suit that had some resemblance to a class action was a CAFA “class action”
• noting that “parens patriae suits are not ‘labeled “class actions”’”
• “The burden of establishing removal jurisdiction, even in CAFA cases, lies with the defendant seeking removal.”
• “The burden of establishing removal 2 jurisdiction, even in CAFA cases, lies with the defendant seeking removal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).