Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

U. S. Supreme Court Holds that Third-Party Defendants to Counterclaims Cannot Remove Class Actions to Federal Court

By Elise M. Bloom & Noa Baddish on June 5, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In a 5-4 decision in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., v. Jackson, 587 U.S. __ (2019), the United States Supreme Court held that a third-party counterclaim defendant does not qualify as a “defendant” under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) and therefore cannot remove class action claims to federal court under either statute.

Brief Background

This case started when a bank filed a debt collection action against George Jackson in state court for charges that Jackson incurred on a Home Depot credit card. Jackson then filed an individual counterclaim against the bank and third-party class action claims against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Carolina Water Systems, Inc. alleging that Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems improperly induced homeowners to buy water treatment systems at inflated prices.

After the bank dismissed its claims against Jackson, Home Depot filed a notice of removal to federal court under both the general removal statute and CAFA. Jackson moved to remand to state court. The district court granted his motion, and the United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit granted Home Depot permission to appeal and affirmed the district court’s decision remanding the case to state court.

Home Depot filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the Court granted.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court analyzed the text of both the general removal statute and CAFA and concluded that both statutes only intended for defendants sued by the original plaintiff to an action to be able to remove the case to federal court.

The general removal statute provides that “the defendant or the defendants” in a “civil action” may remove to federal court.   As a result, the Court held that it did not matter that Home Depot was a defendant to a claim asserted against it because the statute refers to “civil actions, not claims.” Id. at 6. The Court acknowledged that the dissent’s view that the term “defendant” is a “person sued in a civil proceeding” was a plausible reading of the statute but concluded that it was not the best interpretation.

The Court found that whether CAFA permitted a counterclaim defendant to remove was a closer question because CAFA allows “any defendant” to a “class action” to remove to federal court.   Despite the seemingly broader language, the Court concluded that the definition of “defendant” under CAFA was no different than under the general removal statute. The Court explained that while CAFA modified other provisions of the general removal statute by allowing a defendant to remove without the consent of other defendants and relaxing the diversity requirement, CAFA did not expand the types of parties eligible to remove a class action.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Thomas and joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor and the dissent was written by Justice Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Implications

As the majority tacitly acknowledged and the dissent vigorously argued, limiting the definition of “defendant” in this manner could lessen the impact of CAFA. As the dissent points out, theoretically a plaintiff could prevent a defendant from removing a class action to federal court if the plaintiff asserts the class claims as a counterclaim in a pre-existing lawsuit. That being said, if such tactics are used to prevent removal, the Court was clear that it will be up to Congress to amend the statute.

Photo of Elise M. Bloom Elise M. Bloom

Elise M. Bloom is widely hailed as one of the nation’s top employment lawyers and one of the most creative and effective wage and hour, class/collective action and trial lawyers. She is particularly well-known for handling high profile, bet-the-company matters on behalf of…

Elise M. Bloom is widely hailed as one of the nation’s top employment lawyers and one of the most creative and effective wage and hour, class/collective action and trial lawyers. She is particularly well-known for handling high profile, bet-the-company matters on behalf of significant national employers.

Elise is the co-chair of the Firm’s Labor & Employment Department, co-head of the Class & Collective Actions Group and former member of Proskauer’s Executive Committee.

With 30+ years in practice, Elise possesses extensive pre-trial and jury trial experience. She has represented more companies in class actions challenging interns, trainees and volunteers than most others; this includes her precedent-setting win for Fox Searchlight Pictures in the “Black Swan” case. She also addresses a wider range of general employment issues through counseling and employer training programs.

Read more about Elise M. BloomEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Noa Baddish Noa Baddish

Noa M. Baddish is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department. She is a member of the Sports, Employment Litigation & Arbitration, Class and Collective Action, Wage & Hour and Whistleblower & Retaliation Practice Groups.

Noa’s practice concentrates on all aspects…

Noa M. Baddish is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department. She is a member of the Sports, Employment Litigation & Arbitration, Class and Collective Action, Wage & Hour and Whistleblower & Retaliation Practice Groups.

Noa’s practice concentrates on all aspects of labor and employment law. Her employment litigation practice in state and federal courts includes class and collective actions and defending claims of discrimination, harassment, breach of contract and violations of wage and hour laws. Noa represents Major League Baseball and its clubs in an ongoing litigation brought by current and former minor league players who allege minimum wage and overtime violations. In addition, Noa has represented clients in the media and entertainment and fashion industries in lawsuits brought by unpaid interns in wage and hour disputes.

Read more about Noa BaddishEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Proskauer on Class and Collective Actions
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Scott Technology Attorneys Blog
  • Joe Raczynski | Technologist
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19): Guidance for Businesses
  • GovCon & Trade
  • Pro Policyholder
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo