Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co.

7 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. En Banc Appeals Court Interprets CAFA Mass Action Requirement

    Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.Sean P. WajertNovember 20, 2014

    The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction under CAFA because plaintiffs’ petitions for coordination were not explicit proposals to try the cases jointly, and it thus remanded the cases back to state court.Congress enacted CAFA in 2005 to “curb perceived abuses of the class action device which, in the view of Congress, had often been used to litigate multi-state or even national class actions in state courts.” Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 952 (9th Cir.2009). CAFA further extends federal jurisdiction over “mass action” cases when several requirements are met, although only the “proposed to be tried jointly” requirement was at issue here.

  2. Mass Action Is Beyond The Mere ‘Number Game’

    McGlinchey Stafford PLLCMcGlinchey StaffordApril 17, 2012

    Agreeing with the reasoning in Hampton and Rodriguez, the Court stated that these cases made clear that neither Westerfeld nor Freeman involved the “mass action” provision at issue in this case. Specifically, Westerfeld analyzed the applicability of the “local-controversy exception” to federal jurisdiction over class actions, and Freeman analyzed whether claims can be aggregated to satisfy the monetary threshold of CAFA’s ‘class action’ federal jurisdiction provision.Moreover, the Court stated that Anderson v. Bayer Corp., 610 F.3d 390, 393 (7th Cir. 2010) and Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 953 (9th Cir. 2009) have directly rejected defendants’ theory. In Anderson, the Seventh Circuit held that “by excluding cases in which the claims were consolidated on a defendant’s motion, Congress appears to have contemplated that some cases which could have been brought as a mass action would, because of the way in which the plaintiffs chose to structure their claims, remain outside of CAFA’s grant of jurisdiction”.

  3. Mass Actions Cannot Be Removed En-Masse

    McGlinchey Stafford PLLCMcGlinchey StaffordDecember 6, 2011

    In this case, there are not 100 or more persons who have been proposed to be tried jointly. The Court pointed that this precise issue has been addressed by the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, which both held that plaintiffs could avoid federal removal jurisdiction under CAFA by carving their filings into separate pleadings, Anderson v. Bayer Corp., 610 F.3d 390, 393-95 (7th Cir. 2010) and Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 953, 955 (9th Cir. 2009). (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA law blog analysis of Anderson posted on September 8, 2010 and the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Tanoh posted on August 13, 2009.)

  4. Court Permits Plaintiffs to Evade CAFA Mass Action Reach

    Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.Sean P. WajertNovember 16, 2011

    Reference to the other identical cases was, the court thought, akin to defendant "consolidating" the cases; by excluding cases in which the claims were consolidated on a defendant’s motion, Congress appears to have contemplated that some cases which could have been brought as a mass action would, because of the way in which the plaintiffs chose to structure their claims, remain outside of CAFA’s grant of jurisdiction. Citing Anderson v. Bayer Corp., 610 F.3d 390, 393 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009). So, another example of the numerical loophole to removal of mass actions, evading the Congressional intent.

  5. Split Class Members Into Multiple Actions To Avoid CAFA

    McGlinchey Stafford PLLCMcGlinchey StaffordSeptember 8, 2010

    The Seventh Circuit stated that this is not necessarily anomalous because the general rule in a diversity case is that the plaintiffs as masters of the complaint may include or omit claims or parties in order to determine the forum. In addition, the Seventh Circuit noted that in Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir.2009), the Ninth Circuit held that none of the seven state court actions involving fewer than 100 plaintiffs could be treated as a single mass action for CAFA purposes. (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Tanoh posted on August 13, 2009).

  6. Show Me The Money! And Show Me The People! To Retain A CAFA Jurisdiction, Says the District Court.

    McGlinchey Stafford PLLCMcGlinchey StaffordJune 15, 2010

    He recommended that the removing defendants had not satisfied the requirement because this action neither involved 100 or more people nor did the complaint sought any monetary relief. The Removing defendants filed their objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.The District Court noted that the magistrate judge’s finding that the mass actions, unlike class actions, do not allow for the representation of parties not before the court based on Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co., 561 F.3d 945, 952 (9th Cir. 2009). The District Court noted that ordinarily, a plaintiff cannot assert the rights of third persons in a representational capacity.

  7. If Math Ever Makes a Return to the LSAT, Here are Two Questions that Probably Won’t Appear: Does 1=100? Does 99=100?

    McGlinchey Stafford PLLCMcGlinchey StaffordApril 2, 2010

    It isn’t so clear after all.Two cases show the problems with counting to 100 in CAFA mass actions. In Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009), Los Angeles plaintiffs lawyers bunched the essentially identical claims of over 664 West African plantation workers into seven separate suits, none of which featured 100 or more plaintiffs. Undeterred, defendants removed and asked the court to realize that these cases were separate in docket number only.