Today at 10:00 a.m. Eastern, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in The Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450. In Standard Fire, the Court will consider whether a class action plaintiff can avoid removal under CAFA by stipulating that the action does not seek to recover more than $5 million, which is the minimum amount in controversy required for federal diversity jurisdiction.
Ordinarily, oral argument transcripts are posted to the Court's website later the same day. When the Standard Fire argument transcript is posted online, it should be available at this link.
My original post on this case is here. The Supreme Court's statement of the issue reads as follows:
Last Term, this Court held that in a putative class action "the mere proposal of a class ... could not bind persons who were not parties." Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368, 2382 (2011). In light of that holding, the question presented is:UPDATE: The oral argument transcript is now available at the link above. Also, SCOTUSblog had this argument preview last Friday.When a named plaintiff attempts to defeat a defendant's right of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by filing with a class action complaint a "stipulation" that attempts to limit the damages he "seeks" for the absent putative class members to less than the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction, and the defendant establishes that the actual amount in controversy, absent the "stipulation," exceeds $5 million, is the "stipulation" binding on absent class members so as to destroy federal jurisdiction?