Today the Eleventh Circuit handed down a new opinion on rehearing in the Cappuccitti case. Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2010). More on this new opinion later.
UPDATE: Here is the introductory paragraph of the three-judge, per curiam opinion, which neatly summarizes the new decision and its holding:
On July 19, 2010, we issued an opinion in this case. Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., No. 09-14107, slip op. (11th Cir. July 19, 2010). We based our decision on our interpretation of the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.), which we have elsewhere called a “statutory labyrinth.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1199 (11th Cir. 2007). Subsequent reflection has led us to conclude that our interpretation was incorrect. Specifically, CAFA’s text does not require at least one plaintiff in a class action to meet the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, we construe both parties’ petitions for rehearing en banc to include petitions for panel rehearing, vacate our earlier opinion, and replace it with this one.
Slip op. at 2 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
The opinion's ensuing discussion of the jurisdiction question is very short, simple and straightforward; nothing surprising about it, this time. Id. at 4-7. The opinion then goes on to address the substantive issue on appeal. It reverses the district court's order denying the defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and remands the case for further proceedings. Id. at 7-17.