28 U.S.C. § 1711
Definitions
In this chapter:(1)Class.—The term “class” means all of the class members in a class action.(2)Class action.—The term “class action” means any civil action filed in a district court of the United States under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any civil action that is removed to a district court of the United States that was originally filed under a State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more representatives as a class action.(3)Class counsel.—The term “class counsel” means the persons who serve as the attorneys for the class members in a proposed or certified class action.(4)Class members.—The term “class members” means the persons (named or unnamed) who fall within the definition of the proposed or certified class in a class action.(5)Plaintiff class action.—The term “plaintiff class action” means a class action in which class members are plaintiffs.(6)Proposed settlement.—The term “proposed settlement” means an agreement regarding a class action that is subject to court approval and that, if approved, would be binding on some or all class members.(Added Pub. L. 109–2, § 3(a), Feb. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 5.)Editorial NotesReferences in TextRule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in par. (2), is set out in the Appendix to this title.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective DateSection applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Feb. 18, 2005, see section 9 of Pub. L. 109–2, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 1332 of this title.
Findings and PurposesPub. L. 109–2, § 2, Feb. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 4, provided that:“(a)Findings.—Congress finds the following:“(1) Class action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm.“(2) Over the past decade, there have been abuses of the class action device that have—“(A) harmed class members with legitimate claims and defendants that have acted responsibly;“(B) adversely affected interstate commerce; and“(C) undermined public respect for our judicial system.“(3) Class members often receive little or no benefit from class actions, and are sometimes harmed, such as where—“(A) counsel are awarded large fees, while leaving class members with coupons or other awards of little or no value;“(B) unjustified awards are made to certain plaintiffs at the expense of other class members; and“(C) confusing notices are published that prevent class members from being able to fully understand and effectively exercise their rights.“(4) Abuses in class actions undermine the national judicial system, the free flow of interstate commerce, and the concept of diversity jurisdiction as intended by the framers of the United States Constitution, in that State and local courts are—“(A) keeping cases of national importance out of Federal court;“(B) sometimes acting in ways that demonstrate bias against out-of-State defendants; and“(C) making judgments that impose their view of the law on other States and bind the rights of the residents of those States.“(b)Purposes.—The purposes of this Act [see Short Title of 2005 Amendments note set out under section 1 of this title] are to—“(1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members with legitimate claims;“(2) restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction; and“(3) benefit society by encouraging innovation and lowering consumer prices.”
Notes of Decisions
Katie Lowery v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “44 This sub-paragraph begins by excluding from the definition of mass actions those civil actions that fall within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1711 (2). Section 1711(2) provides: The term “class action” means any civil action filed in a district court of the United States under…”
Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., Inc., 551 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “CAFA § 2(a)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1711 note. Furthermore, CAFA states that "there have been *408 abuses of the class action device," including that "[s]tate and local courts are .”
Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “4, 5 (2005), 28 U.S.C. § 1711 note. In light of these findings, Congress enacted CAFA to restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction.”
Barbara Elizabeth Lawson v. Life of the South Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “shtml (last visited July 18, 2011); see also Joint Motion for Final Certification of a Settlement Class, Final Approval of Class 6 Life of the South removed the lawsuit to a federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1711 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §…”
Griselda Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transp. Serv, 28 F.4th 989 (9th Cir. 2022).
“” Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1711 (2005). Given this statutory background, the Supreme Court has advised “that no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA,” in part because the statute was enacted “to facilitate adjudication of certain class…”
Theodore H. Frank v. Netflix, Inc., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015).
“Because Congress does not define the ambiguous term “coupon” within the statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1711 ; see also In re EasySaver Rewards Litig.”
Joyce Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Co., 701 F.3d 243 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “, or, alternatively, that there was diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1711 et seq. Johnson moved to remand, denying that her claim was completely preempted and also asserting that it fell within CAFA's local controversy exception to…”
Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).
“CAFA was enacted, in part, to “restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction.”
In Re: Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014).
“” 69 The legitimacy of class settlements is reflected not only in Rule 23(e) but also in the special regime that Congress has created to govern class settlements under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1711 - 15. Through the procedural mechanism of a class settlement, defendants “are entitled to…”
Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009).
“4 , 5 (codified as a note to 28 U.S.C. § 1711 ) (“[T]here have been abuses of the class action device that have adversely affected interstate commerce.”
Leslie Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006).
“In fact, § 2(b) of CAFA describes its purposes as follows: (1) "[to] assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members with legitimate claims”; (2) "[to] restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by providing for federal court consideration of…”
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.