Filing Second Amended Complaint Does Not Recommence the Action for Purposes of CAFA Says E.D. Ca.
Addressing a frequently litigated issue, a court in the Eastern District of California in Richina v. Maytag Corp., Slip Copy, 2005 WL 2810100 (E.D. Ca. Oct. 26, 2005) has held that the plaintiff's filing of a second amended complaint after the enactment date of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) did not recommence the action such that the action could be deemed commenced at the time of that filing for purposes of CAFA. This was so even though the state court had granted a demurrer with respect to the plaintiff's prior complaint, something that extinguishes the complaint under California law. The court reasoned that because the Plaintiff's core fraudulent concealment claim consistently appeared in each of the plaintiff's filings, no new action could be said to have commenced through the filing of the second amended complaint.