Fourth Circuit Adopts Standards for Discretionary Appeals of CAFA Remands
In Dominion Energy, Inc. v. City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System (PDF, 147KB), the Fourth Circuit announced a non-exhaustive list of things it would consider in deciding whether to allow an appeal from an order remanding a class action to state court. These criteria are the same as those that several other courts of appeals use. The Fourth Circuit went on to accept an appeal to address whether claims for aiding or abetting the breach of a fiduciary duty fall within CAFA’s removal exceptions. It ultimately held that they didn’t.
The Class Action Fairness Act (which is commonly referred to with the acronym “CAFA”) allows parties to remove a class action from state court to federal court if certain criteria are met. But if the district court remands the class action back to state court, opportunities for appealing that order are limited. Aggrieved parties petition the court of appeals for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). The court of appeals then has discretion to accept the appeal.
Before Dominion Energy, the Fourth Circuit had accepted appeals under § 1453(c)(1) without announcing any standards for exercising its discretion. In Dominion Energy, the court adopted the same non-exhaustive set of considerations that several other courts of appeals have used:
- Whether the petition presents an important CAFA-related question;
- Whether the question presented by the CAFA appeal petition is unsettled;
- Whether the district court’s jurisdictional decision under CAFA is incorrect, or at least fairly debatable;
- Whether the CAFA-related question is consequential to the resolution of the particular class action;
- Whether that question is likely to evade effective review if left for consideration only after final judgment;
- Whether the CAFA-related question is likely to recur;
- Whether the petition arises from a decision that is sufficiently final to position the class action for intelligent review; and
- Whether the probable harm to the petitioners if an immediate appeal is denied outweighs the probable harm to the other parties should an immediate appeal be entertained.
The petition in Dominion Energy involved the application of CAFA’s removal exceptions (found in § 1453(d)). CAFA provides that certain kinds of class claims cannot be removed to federal court despite meeting the normal removal criteria. The defendants in Dominion Energy asked the Fourth Circuit to address whether a claim for aiding and abetting the breach of a fiduciary duty falls within one or more of those exceptions. And the Fourth Circuit thought that this issue merited an immediate appeal. The issue had been the subject of several district court decisions and was likely to recur. The issue was also primed for appellate review; no further factual development was necessary, and absent an immediate appeal the defendants would likely lose any chance to litigate in a federal forum.
Judge Motz dissented. But she agreed that the appeal should be allowed, dissenting on the merits of the removal-exception question.
Links to the decision: Dominion Energy, Inc. v. City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, 2019 WL 2707584 (4th Cir. 2019), available at the Fourth 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 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).
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....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....