15 U.S.C. § 6614

Y2K actions as class actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Material defect requirementA Y2K action involving a claim that a product or service is defective may be maintained as a class action in Federal or State court as to that claim only if—(1) it satisfies all other prerequisites established by applicable Federal or State law, including applicable rules of civil procedure; and(2) the court finds that the defect in a product or service as alleged would be a material defect for the majority of the members of the class.(b) NotificationIn any Y2K action that is maintained as a class action, the court, in addition to any other notice required by applicable Federal or State law, shall direct notice of the action to each member of the class, which shall include—(1) a concise and clear description of the nature of the action;(2) the jurisdiction where the case is pending; and(3) the fee arrangements with class counsel, including the hourly fee being charged, or, if it is a contingency fee, the percentage of the final award which will be paid, including an estimate of the total amount that would be paid if the requested damages were to be granted.(c) Forum for Y2K class actions(1) Jurisdiction

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of any Y2K action that is brought as a class action.

(2) ExceptionsThe district courts of the United States shall not have original jurisdiction over a Y2K action brought as a class action if—(A)(i) a substantial majority of the members of the proposed plaintiff class are citizens of a single State;(ii) the primary defendants are citizens of that State; and(iii) the claims asserted will be governed primarily by the laws of that State;(B) the primary defendants are States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district courts of the United States may be foreclosed from ordering relief;(C) the plaintiff class does not seek an award of punitive damages, and the amount in controversy is less than the sum of $10,000,000 (exclusive of interest and costs), computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in the action; or(D) there are less than 100 members of the proposed plaintiff class.A party urging that any exception described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) applies to an action shall bear the full burden of demonstrating the applicability of the exception.(3) Procedure if requirements not met(A) Dismissal or remandA United States district court shall dismiss, or, if after removal, strike the class allegations and remand, any Y2K action brought or removed under this subsection as a class action if—(i) the action is subject to the jurisdiction of the court solely under this subsection; and(ii) the court determines the action may not proceed as a class action based on a failure to satisfy the conditions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.(B) Amendment; removal

Nothing in paragraph (A) shall prohibit plaintiffs from filing an amended class action in Federal or State court. A defendant shall have the right to remove such an amended class action to a United States district court under this subsection.

Upon dismissal or remand, the period of limitations for any claim that was asserted in an action on behalf of any named or unnamed member of any proposed class shall be deemed tolled to the full extent provided under Federal law.

(D) Dismissal without prejudice

The dismissal of a Y2K action under subparagraph (A) shall be without prejudice.

(d) Effect on rules of civil procedure

Except as otherwise provided in this section, nothing in this section supersedes any rule of Federal or State civil procedure applicable to class actions.

(Pub. L. 106–37, § 15, July 20, 1999, 113 Stat. 201.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Rules of Federal civil procedure, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1), (c)(3)(A)(ii), and (d), are contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1999–2007 · leading case: Lewis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Lucent Tech. Inc., 211 F.R.D. 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lewis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Lucent Tech. Inc., 211 F.R.D. 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “After the case was removed to federal court, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)(1) (the “Y2K act”), Beatie, King & Abate was replaced by other named plaintiffs, of which only Lewis Tree now remains.”

del Rosario Ortega v. Star Kist, 370 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2004). “185 (1999) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)) (granting the district courts original jurisdiction over “any Y2K action that is brought as a class action,” except where a “substantial majority” of the plaintiff class is from the same state as the “primary” defendants and the…”

ESI Ergonomic Solutions, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 50 P.3d 844 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “, 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (2000) (limiting Y2K class actions); 29 U.”

Lewis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Lucent Tech. Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “After the case was removed to federal court, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)(1) (the “Y2K act”), Bea-tie, King & Abate was replaced by other named plaintiffs, of which only Lewis Tree now remains.”

Lewis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “This action was removed to this Court from New York state court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)(1) (the “Y2K Act”). The defendants now move to compel arbitration of the claims by the plaintiff Iron-man on the grounds that the agreement governing the purchase of…”

Gene & Gene, LLC v. Biopay, LLC, 240 F.R.D. 239 (M.D. La. 2006). “The plaintiff has shown that for reasons of judicial economy a class action is the superior method for the *247 resolution of this dispute.”

State of Hawaii v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d 835 (D. Haw. 2006). “, 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)(1) (“the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of any Y2K action that is brought as a class action”); 5 U.”

In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 509 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2007). “, 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)(1) ("the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of any action that is brought as a class action”); 9 U.”

Lewis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Lucent Tech. Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 4× “This case was originally filed in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County in January, 1999, and was removed to this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)(1) (the “Y2K act”). The claims of plaintiff Ned Davis Research, Inc.”

In Re Pharm. Ind. Aver. Wholesale Price, 509 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2007). “, 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)(1) ("the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of any action that is brought as a class action"); 9 U.”

Preferred MSO of Am.-Austin LLC v. QuadraMed Corp., 85 F. Supp. 2d 974 (C.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 1441 (b) and the removal provision of the Y2K Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6614 , Defendant removed this case to this Court on July 26, 1999.”

Mineral Area Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. v. Keane, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 589 (N.D. Iowa 2000). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 6614 (c)(2)(D). In the present action, the plaintiffs’ putative class numbers, at most, 81, 2 which is insufficient to meet the class prerequisites of the Y2K Act.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.