Appealing CAFA Remands via § 1291
In Cheapside Minerals, Ltd. v. Devon Energy Production Co., the Fifth Circuit held that a remand under the Class Action Fairness Act’s local-controversy rule was an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That meant the appellant did not need to resort to a discretionary appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c).
The Remand in Cheapside Minerals
Cheapside Minerals stemmed from a dispute over oil-and-gas royalties. The plaintiffs filed a class-action in Texas state court, which the defendant removed to federal court. The district court subsequently remanded the action to state court, concluding that the case fell under the “local controversy” exception to the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant then sought review by the Fifth Circuit.
§ 1447(d)’s Limit on Remand Appeals
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), many remand decisions are not reviewable. But not all; the rule has exceptions. One exception comes from the Class Action Fairness Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) provides that, notwithstanding § 1447(d), aggrieved litigants can petition a court of appeals for permission to appeal an order remanding a case that was removed under the Act.
Moreover, § 1447(d) does not apply to all remands. The Supreme Court has held that § 1447(d) must be read in the context of the rest of § 1447. So in Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermandsdorfer, the Court held that § 1447(d)’s prohibition on remand appeals applies only to remands authorized by the neighboring § 1447(c). And § 1447(c) authorizes remands due to either a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or a procedural defect in removal. So if a district court remands an action for some other reason, § 1447(d) does not bar an appeal. And so long as the remand marked the end of the action, the remand can be reviewed via 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Local-Controversy Remands & § 1291
Given the scope of § 1447(d), the Fifth Circuit held that orders remanding cases removed under the Class Action Fairness Act are appealable final decisions so long as the remand was not due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or a defect in removal. And a remand under the local-controversy exception is neither. It’s instead an abstention-based remand. And § 1447(d) does not bar review of abstention-based remands. The remand was thus an appealable final decision under § 1291.
Cheapside Minerals, Ltd. v. Devon Energy Production Co., 2024 WL 886951 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
Robert H. Klonoff has posted a draft of his new article Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f): Reflections After a Quarter Century. The article includes new empirical data on appeals (and attempts to appeal) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) and updates my study from a few years ago. It also includes an analysis […]
Continue reading....
The Fourth Circuit split on whether it could review the denial of a motion to dismiss alongside a Rule 23(f) class-certification appeal.
Continue reading....
In National ATM Council, Inc. v. Visa, Inc., the D.C. Circuit offered a rare explanation for granting a petition to appeal a class-certification grant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The reasons given were particularly interesting.
Continue reading....
In Harris v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc., the D.C. Circuit reviewed (and reversed) a grant of class certification. But it refused to use pendent appellate jurisdiction to review certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court explained that class actions and collective actions “are fundamentally different creatures.” The court of […]
Continue reading....
The Class Action Fairness Act (often referred to as “CAFA”) permits the removal of certain class actions brought in state court. CAFA includes a special appellate provision—28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1)—which gives the courts of appeals discretion to review a district court order “granting or denying a motion to remand a class action to the State court […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.
Continue reading....