跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

cafa-notice-of-removal

Drafts a Notice of Removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), transferring a state court class action to federal court. Covers minimal diversity, aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, 100+ class members, CAFA exceptions, unanimity, timeliness, and required exhibits. Use when a defendant needs to remove a state-filed class action to federal court within 30 days of service.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(2)

  • SKILL.md5.3 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

CAFA Notice of Removal

Drafts a procedurally compliant Notice of Removal invoking federal jurisdiction under CAFA for class actions filed in state court. The removing party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction; removal statutes are strictly construed against removal.

Prerequisites

Collect before drafting:

  1. State court complaint with all exhibits and filing date
  2. Service documents — date and method of service on each defendant
  3. State court docket sheet
  4. Party citizenship — state of incorporation + principal place of business (corporate); domicile (individual)
  5. Class size evidence — basis for 100+ putative members
  6. AIC basis — prayer for relief, damages model, or other support for aggregate amount > $5,000,000
  7. Co-defendant consents — written consent from all other properly served defendants (if not co-signing)

Output Structure

Draft the notice with these ten sections in order:

1. Caption and Title

  • Federal district court and correct division; case style mirroring state court caption
  • State court case number
  • Title: NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441, AND 1446

2. Introductory Statement

  • Identify removing defendant(s), originating state court, and county
  • Cite statutory basis: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446, and § 1332(d)
  • State complaint filing date, service date, and affirm filing within 30 days

3. CAFA Jurisdictional Elements

ElementThresholdShow
Minimal diversity≥1 class member diverse from ≥1 defendantNamed plaintiff + defendant citizenships; corporate = state of incorp. + principal place of business (Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77)
Amount in controversy>$5M aggregate (excl. interest and costs)(est. class size) × (per-member damages) + penalties/multipliers/fees. Good-faith short plain statement suffices (Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. 81)
Class size≥100 putative membersCite complaint class definition and size allegations

4. CAFA Exceptions Analysis

Address each exception with a risk of application:

ExceptionStatuteTriggerCounter-argument
Home state§ 1332(d)(4)(B)Primary defendants + ≥2/3 class are forum-state citizensShow defendant citizenship outside forum or multi-state class
Local controversy§ 1332(d)(4)(A)≥2/3 class are forum citizens + significant local defendant + no similar class action in 3 yrsShow multi-state class or no qualifying local defendant
Discretionary decline§ 1332(d)(3)1/3–2/3 of class are forum citizensApply multi-factor analysis; argue federal interest predominates

5. Procedural History

Chronological narrative: complaint filed, claims asserted, service on each defendant, prior state court activity. If removal is triggered by an amended pleading or other paper, identify the document, date received, and the information that first made removability ascertainable.

6. Timeliness

TriggerDeadlineStatute
Initial pleading30 days from service§ 1446(b)(1)
Amended pleading / other paper30 days from receipt§ 1446(b)(3)
Outer limit1 year from commencement (absent bad faith)§ 1446(c)(1)

State the specific service date and filing date; show the day count.

7. Unanimity of Defendants

  • All properly joined and served defendants must consent — § 1446(b)(2)(A)
  • All co-sign this notice, or attach written consent from each non-signing served defendant
  • Identify unserved defendants; unanimity does not extend to them

8. Exhibits

ExhibitContents
AState court complaint + attachments
BSummons and proof of service per defendant
CState court docket sheet
DCo-defendant consents (if applicable)
E+Amended complaints or other removal-triggering papers (if applicable)

9. Prayer for Relief

Request the Court: (1) accept this Notice; (2) exercise CAFA jurisdiction; (3) deny any remand motion; (4) grant further relief as just and proper. Include § 1446(d) compliance statement re: filing copy with state court clerk and serving all parties.

10. Signature Block

Attorney name, bar number, firm, address, phone, email, party represented. FRCP 11 certification. Date = filing date. Comply with local e-filing signature rules.

Pitfalls and Checks

  • Strict construction: Ambiguities resolve against removal — ground every jurisdictional assertion in the record
  • CAFA-only basis: Do not assert § 1331 federal question jurisdiction unless independently supported; state CAFA as sole basis
  • Corporate citizenship: State of incorporation + principal place of business (nerve center test)
  • Local rules: Check font, margins, page limits, e-filing requirements, Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44), and CAFA disclosure statement requirements before filing

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

中国大陆地区法院类案快速检索与《案件检索报告》(DOCX)生成技能。以案件五项要点(案由/法律关系、争议焦点、关键事实、我方诉请与诉讼地位、请求权基础法条)为检索锚点,经一次四问确认即开工(其中**检索地域范围**与**裁判时间范围**为强制选择题,默认范围为「2021年1月1日以后裁判的浙江省范围内的法院案例」,用户点选默认后须回显该范围提示);按**请求权基础、法律关系、案件事实三要素**判定高匹配——用户**指定**检索特定结果的案例时结果相似度计入评分(四要素满分 10 分),用户**未指定**时结果相似度不作为高匹配考虑因素(三要素满分 8 分);r1 判定须**核对法条版本与时间效力**,援引已失效旧法条者不得给满分;以语义向量检索为主召回、精确结构检索为条件兜底,本地脚本加权打分后按「得分率 > 法院层级 > 审判程序 > 裁判日期」排序,并检测**同院同日同标题的重复入库**案件、疑似重复者不占入报名额;截取匹配度最高的 5–10 例类案,逐案调详情核验案号并摘录判词原文,最后直接输出含页脚页码的 DOCX 报告(默认保存至桌面)。全流程人工确认 1 次、检索类调用控制在 2 次召回 + ≤10 次详情以内,报告阶段检索冻结。未指定结果时三要素高匹配而结果相反者亦会入报(逐例标注结果方向),指定结果时结果相反者一律剔除;报告内以两处固定声明披露「未设不利先例定向检索路径」的局限。当用户要求「快速检索类似案例」「找几个正向案例」「快速版案例检索报告」「检索 5 到 10 个类案并出报告」「出一份类案检索报告 docx」时使用。需要四象限归位、反向案例定向检索、补充召回多轮迭代或 14 分制硬软条件精判时,应使用完整版技能「案例检索报告Plus」而非本技能。基于华宇元典法律数据 MCP。

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub212026年9月23日 更新

88查企业风险查询与分析工具 —— 专注于中国大陆企业的法务风险查询与分析,覆盖经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法案件等风险类型。支持公司名称、统一社会信用代码、companyId 三种输入方式,自动完成风险查询并输出结构化风险分析总结。 触发场景:仅当用户意图为查询企业风险/法务风险时触发。包括但不限于:企业风险查询、公司风险、经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法风险、风险扫描、风险评估、企业合规审查、风险报告、XX公司有什么风险、XX公司安全吗、XX公司有没有处罚、XX公司被执行过吗。 不触发场景:纯粹的企业信息查询(如查公司、搜企业、工商信息、注册资本、法人代表、股东结构、专利商标等)不应触发本技能,请使用其他 cha88 系列工具。

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub212026年9月23日 更新

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outlines, defending designees, handling objections, and preserving binding admissions for summary judgment or trial. Use when drafting or responding to 30(b)(6) notices, selecting and preparing designees, building topic-by-topic outlines, or triaging scope and privilege disputes. Trigger keywords: 30(b)(6), corporate representative deposition, topic list, designee, notice analysis, deposition objections, corporate admissions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub212026年9月23日 更新

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination outlines for binding corporate admissions, analyzes noticed topics for objections, and prepares designees. Use when drafting 30(b)(6) notices, preparing corporate deposition topics, selecting or preparing designees, or defending corporate representative depositions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub212026年9月23日 更新

Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub212026年9月23日 更新

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgment details from case documents, then applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and certification requirements. Use post-judgment in commercial litigation when enforcing monetary awards, perfecting judgment liens, or preparing lien filings with the county recorder.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub212026年9月23日 更新

查看 CSlawyer1985 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题