Cafa Litigation Strategy: Class Action Legal Guide

Minimal diversity under CAFA requires only that one class member is a citizen of a different state than one defendant. The amount in controversy calculation includes all claims of all class members, not merely the lead plaintiff's individual claim. Strategic CAFA litigation strategy often involves aggregating damages across the entire class to meet the five million dollar threshold, which may include actual damages, statutory damages, and any other relief sought. Courts have consistently upheld this aggregation approach, making federal jurisdiction accessible in many consumer protection and data breach cases.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires that the class be represented by a lead plaintiff with adequate representation of class interests. The lead plaintiff must demonstrate that their claims are typical of the class and that they will fairly and adequately protect class interests. In developing CAFA litigation strategy, counsel must identify and retain lead plaintiffs with strong factual connections to the underlying harm and clear incentives to pursue the action vigorously on behalf of all class members.

Numerosity requires that joinder of individual class members would be impracticable, typically satisfied when the class exceeds forty members. Commonality demands that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over individual issues. Typicality requires that the lead plaintiff's claims arise from the same conduct and are based on the same legal theories as the class claims. Effective CAFA litigation strategy addresses each element with specific factual allegations and expert declarations supporting the viability of class-wide resolution. Courts in the Eastern District of New York and other federal forums have emphasized that plaintiffs must present clear evidence of common questions that can be resolved on a class-wide basis, particularly in data breach and consumer fraud litigation.

When distinct legal issues or different state law applications affect portions of the class, CAFA litigation strategy may include designating subclasses. Subclasses allow the action to proceed efficiently while ensuring that class members with different legal claims or residing in different jurisdictions receive appropriate representation. For example, in cases involving international class members or residents of foreign countries, separate subclass treatment may be necessary to address conflicts of law and jurisdictional limitations on injunctive relief.

Declaratory relief asks the court to formally declare that a defendant's conduct violated applicable law, creating a legal benchmark for assessing liability in similar cases. Injunctive relief compels the defendant to implement specific corrective measures, such as enhanced security systems, improved governance structures, or expanded monitoring services. CAFA litigation strategy that emphasizes these equitable remedies demonstrates that the lawsuit serves public interest goals beyond individual compensation. Courts are more receptive to class certification when plaintiffs articulate clear, measurable injunctive goals that address the root causes of harm.

Many consumer protection statutes authorize statutory damages per violation in addition to actual damages. CAFA litigation strategy must carefully calculate statutory damages exposure, as these figures often drive the amount in controversy calculation and influence settlement valuations. Federal courts assess whether statutory damages are reasonable and not duplicative of actual damages, requiring counsel to present clear evidence of the harm suffered and the legislative intent behind the statutory damages provision.

Class action settlements require judicial approval and typically involve claims administration processes to distribute funds to class members. CAFA litigation strategy must address the mechanics of settlement, including claims procedures, notice requirements, and cy pres awards for unclaimed funds. Federal courts in New York require detailed settlement agreements specifying how class members will receive notice, submit claims, and obtain compensation. Counsel should also consider whether the settlement includes non-monetary relief, such as monitoring services, enhanced security measures, or other injunctive components that benefit the entire class.

CAFA litigation strategy often includes naming individual corporate officers as co-defendants alongside the company itself. Individual liability requires demonstrating that the officer exercised substantive control over the wrongful conduct or failed to prevent known violations. Courts have held that corporate officers may be personally liable under consumer protection statutes when they directly participated in deceptive practices, approved such conduct, or grossly mismanaged corporate compliance.

Effective CAFA litigation strategy requires careful attention to federal jurisdictional rules, class certification standards, and the full range of remedies available to class members. Attorneys must integrate knowledge of applicable state and federal law, procedural requirements, and strategic case management to maximize the likelihood of successful class certification and favorable resolution. By focusing on both monetary and equitable relief, counsel can pursue outcomes that compensate victims while also promoting systemic corporate reform and consumer protection on a national scale.