In Controversy: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Federal Jurisdiction Requirements and Why the 9th Circuit Is Right that Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees Should Count Towards the Amount in Controversy
Journal
American University Law Review Forum
Volume
72
Abstract
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Shoner v. Carrier Corp. illuminated a circuit split in the interpretation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s amount in controversy requirement provision. Most circuits that have addressed this issue interpret the provision to never include attorneys’ fees towards the amount in controversy requirement. The Ninth Circuit came to a different conclusion, holding that attorneys’ fees can count towards the amount in controversy requirement when the recovery of attorneys’ fees is authorized by the action’s underlying contract or statute. This Comment argues that canons of statutory interpretation, including the well-settled interpretations of similar provisions in other federal statutes, show that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is correct. Further, this Comment considers how the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is superior from a policy perspective.
Repository Citation
Gabrielle Scanlin-Sherman,
In Controversy: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Federal Jurisdiction Requirements and Why the 9th Circuit Is Right that Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees Should Count Towards the Amount in Controversy,
72
(2023).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/stusch_lawrev/80