Appellate Decisions

Appealing CAFA Remands via § 1291

The Fifth Circuit held that litigants can use § 1291 (and not a discretionary appeal under § 1453(c)) to appeal remands under CAFA’s local-controversy exception.

March 18, 2024

By Bryan Lammon

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

recent posts

The Split on Appealing Receivership-Distribution Orders
A Seventh Circuit concurrence explained why litigants should not be able to take collateral-order appeals from orders orders distributing some of the assets in a receivership.
Another Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
A divided Tenth Circuit held that the Bivens question is not independently appealable via the collateral-order doctrine; it must be part of a qualified-immunity appeal.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: April 2024
Notices of appeal, manufactured finality, unresolved claims, qualified-immunity appeals, and much, much more.
Appeals After Unresolved Claims & Theories
Has a district court issued a final decision if it overlooked one of the parties’ claims? Courts seem to disagree. But the best answer might be that these oversights implicate the adequacy of the judgment, not finality.
Manufactured Finality & Dispositive Interlocutory Orders
The Second Circuit split over whether it had jurisdiction after a stipulated judgment, particularly whether a preliminary-injunction decision effectively resolved an action.

related posts

Reviewing Motions to Dismiss via Rule 23(f)
The Fourth Circuit split on whether it could review the denial of a motion to dismiss alongside a Rule 23(f) class-certification appeal.
A Rule 23(f) Appeal Due to an Inadequate Explanation
The D.C. Circuit allowed a Rule 23(f) class-certification appeal largely because the district court’s explanation for certifying a class was inadequate.
Rule 23(f) Appeals & Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction Over a FLSA Collective Action
In an interlocutory appeal from the grant of class certification, the D.C. Circuit refused to extend pendent appellate jurisdiction over the certification of a FLSA collective action.
New Split on Appealing Sua Sponte CAFA Remands
A divided Eleventh Circuit created a circuit split on whether appellate courts can review sua sponte remands in cases removed under CAFA.
Zimmerman on Class Appeals
Adam Zimmerman makes the case for class appeals: appellate courts themselves using a class action to remedy failures in individual administrative adjudication.