July 23, 2014

Unanimous Supreme Court Slams Shut Procedural Loophole for Class-Action Plaintiffs

On March 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision affecting class-action cases by limiting plaintiffs' ability to use a procedural loophole in their search for a favorable court.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles that class-action plaintiffs cannot evade removal to federal court by stipulating, pre-certification, that they seek damages less than the jurisdictional threshold required for removal. In Knowles, the plaintiff filed a class action in Arkansas state court against Standard Fire Insurance Company, alleging that Standard Fire had unlawfully failed to include a general contractor fee in certain homeowner insurance loss payments and seeking to certify a class of hundreds, if not thousands, of similarly situated Arkansas policyholders.

Apparently hoping to remain in state court rather than having the case removed to federal court (a generally disfavored forum for class action plaintiffs for various reasons), Knowles stipulated in his complaint that "Plaintiff and the Class . . . will seek to recover total aggregate damages of less than five million dollars." By so stipulating, Knowles sought to evade the procedural jurisdictional minimum of $5 million set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). He was initially successful, as after Standard Fire removed the case to Federal District Court, that court remanded the case because of the stipulation and in spite of its finding that the amount in controversy would have exceeded the jurisdictional minimum absent the stipulation.

In its unanimous decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court found that Knowles's stipulation was not binding on the class he purported to represent, as he could not legally bind members of a proposed class prior to that class being certified. Not being able to bind purported class members, "Knowles lacked the authority to concede the amount-in-controversy issue for absent class members." The Court further agreed with Knowles that stipulations to damages likely simplified the valuation of amounts in controversy in class actions, but found that ignoring the nonbinding stipulation only required judges to do what they would do in all those cases in which there is not a stipulation.

In short, while the Court agreed that an individual could limit the amount in controversy as to himself, that plaintiff could not "resolve the amount-in-controversy question [by stipulation] in light of his inability to bind the rest of the class." The Court thus found that the District Court had erred in accepting the stipulation as grounds for remand, vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the Federal District Court.

The Knowles v. Standard Fire decision is an important decision for employers, as it limits forum shopping by plaintiffs and allows cases to be removed to federal court where appropriate. Employers, however, must remain vigilant and mindful that plaintiffs' lawyers will likely continue to use creative pleading practices to stay out of federal court in cases where they view state court as the better forum.


About the Author

Barnes & Thornburg’s Labor and Employment Law Department is one of the fastest-growing labor groups in the nation. Two qualities set us apart: Our passion for what we do, and the pride we take in helping clients achieve their business goals. To succeed in the competitive global marketplace, our clients must not only meet but exceed their customers’ expectations. We share this objective, offering superior service, innovative ideas and an understanding of the challenges our clients face.


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.