U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number


Cert. Denied


Questions Presented

1. Whether an action brought under a state law authorizing a plaintiff to pursue claims on behalf of absent persons and to obtain a judgment binding them is a “class action,” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B).

2. Whether, in an action that asserts both “class” and purportedly “non-class” representative claims on behalf of the same group of absent persons, the representative claims are “claims of the individual class members” that “shall be aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds. . . $5,000,000” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).

Case Updates

Cert. petition denied

October 03, 2016

U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review Ninth Circuit decision that reduces CAFA protections

June 24, 2016

The U.S. Chamber, along with the Retail Litigation Center, filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to place claims brought under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) beyond the reach of the federal Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Contrary to Supreme Court precedent and the text of CAFA itself, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that PAGA claims cannot be removed under CAFA or aggregated with other class claims to meet CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement. The Chamber’s brief warned that the growing trend of California plaintiffs repackaging their employment class actions as representative PAGA actions to get around the rigors of CAFA poses serious harm to California businesses, which employ over one-tenth of the American workforce.

Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A. Parsharami, Daniel E. Jones, and Matthew A. Waring of Mayer Brown LLP served as co-counsel for the amici.

Case Documents