July 25, 2014

Supreme Court Rules Class Action Plaintiffs Cannot Use Damage-Limiting Stipulations To Avoid Federal Court

In a landmark decision in the area of class action litigation, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs cannot use damage-limiting stipulations to prevent their cases from being removed from state to federal court.  In its March 19, 2013, ruling in Standard Fire Insurance v. Greg Knowles, the nation’s highest court found that pre-certification stipulations purporting to limit damages in class actions do not eliminate a federal court’s jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The Standard Fire decision is a significant ruling for class action defendants as it largely eliminates a procedural tactic frequently used by plaintiffs to thwart federal jurisdiction and keep class actions in plaintiff-friendly state courts. 

Under CAFA, a state court class action can be removed to federal court if there is “minimal diversity” between the parties and where the jurisdictional amount exceeds $5 million.  To prevent removal under CAFA, the plaintiff in Knowles filed a stipulation that he “will not at any time during this case seek damages for the class action in excess of $5,000,000 in the aggregate.”  Based solely on the stipulation, the trial court found that the amount in controversy fell below the jurisdictional threshold required under CAFA and remanded the case to state court.   The Supreme Court granted defendant’s writ of certiorari to address “divergent views” among lower courts as to the jurisdictional impact of damages-limiting stipulations in the class action context. 

The Court based its Standard Fire decision on the grounds that pre-certification stipulations cannot “legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified.”  According to the Court, “[b]ecause [plaintiff’s] precertification stipulation does not bind anyone but himself, [he] has not reduced the value of the putative class members’ claims.” 

© Copyright 2014 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved

About the Author

Matthew Kreutzer, Franchise Attorney, Armstrong Teasdale, law firm

Matt Kreutzer serves as Chair of the firm's Franchise, Distribution and Antitrust practice group and is a Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law by the California State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization. He has spent more than a decade working with individuals and companies on issues relating to franchise law and is well-versed in all stages of the franchise relationship. 


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.