William Schorsch, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant-Petitioner
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
Ever since Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), defendants have been trying to remove suits that were pending in state court on February 18, 2005, although the statute applies only to suits “commenced” after that date. We have rejected two of these attempts in published opinions. See Knudsen v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 411 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. June 7, 2005); Pfizer, Inc. v. Lott, 417 F.3d 725, 2005 WL 1840046 (7th Cir. August 4, 2005). Today’s opinion makes a third.
Knudsen holds that a case is “commenced” when…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Pace v. DiGuglielmoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Mayle v. FelixSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Devlin v. ScardellettiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Craig Garbie v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Powers v. Hamilton County Public Defender CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Farina v. Nokia, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Santamarina, Guiller v. Sears RoebuckCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
- Arcand v. Brother International Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2009
- Braud v. Transport Service Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2006
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.