Table of Content
Then, in October 2016, Home Depot attempted to remove the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Home Depot also asked the district court to realign the parties, such that Jackson would be the plaintiff and Home Depot, CWS, and Citibank would be the defendants. The district court denied the realignment request, finding that there was no need to realign because the adverse parties were already on opposite sides of the lawsuit. In November 2016, Jackson moved to remand the case back to state court—which the court granted—finding that Home Depot technically was not a “defendant” and therefore could not have removed to federal court in the first place.
So §1453 must, after all, be its own font of removal power and not a conduit for removals sourced by §1441. On a natural reading, “the phones” refers to telephones provided by the prison, whereas “any phone” includes visitors’ cellphones. Likewise, even if the phrase “the defendant” reached only original defendants, the phrase “any defendant” would presumptively encompass all kinds. Again, putting the word “any” into a “phrase . Suggests a broad meaning.” Ali, 552 U.
Services
Instead of venturing down this path, we hold that a third-party counterclaim defendant is not a “defendant” who can remove under §1441. The two clauses in §1453 that employ the term “any defendant” simply clarify that certain limitations on removal that might otherwise apply do not limit removal under §1453. Section 1453 first states that “ class action may be removed . Without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought.” There is no indication that this language does anything more than alter the general rule that a civil action may not be removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction “if any of the .
All the resources of statutory interpretation confirm that under CAFA and §1441, third-party defendants are defendants. Finally, the dissent argues that our interpretation allows defendants to use the statute as a “tactic” to prevent removal, post, at 7, but that result is a consequence of the statute Congress wrote. Of course, if Congress shares the dissent’s disapproval of certain litigation “tactics,” it certainly has the authority to amend the statute. Jackson’s claims arose out of an alleged scheme between Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems to induce homeowners to buy water treatment systems at inflated prices. The crux of the claims was that Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems engaged in unlawful referral sales and deceptive and unfair trade practices in violation of North Carolina law, Gen. Stat.
IS REMOVAL LIMITED TO THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT?
So far I have accepted, arguendo, the majority and respondent’s view that third-party defendants are not covered by the general removal provision, §1441. But I agree with petitioner that this is incorrect. On a proper reading of §1441, too, third-party defendants are “defendants” entitled to remove. Though a majority of District Courts would disagree, their exclusion of third-party defendants has rested on a misunderstanding of a previous case of ours, and the mere fact that this misreading has spread is no reason for us to go along with it. Section 1453 implicitly limits removal to class actions where there is minimal diversity, thus satisfying Article III. After all, §1453 incorporates the definition of “class action” found in the first paragraph of §1332. But the very next paragraph, §1332, codifies the part of CAFA that created federal jurisdiction over class actions involving minimal diversity.
Our job is not to judge whether Congress’s fears about state-court bias in class actions were warranted or indeed whether CAFA should allay them. We are to determine the scope of the term “defendant” under CAFA as well as the general removal provision, §1441. To the extent Home Depot is arguing that the term “defendant” has a different meaning in §1453 than it does in §1441, we reject its interpretation. Because §§1453 and 1441 both rely on the procedures for removal in §1446, which also employs the term “defendant,” interpreting “defendant” to have different meanings in different sections would render the removal provisions incoherent.
Dissenting opinion
But a good interpreter also reads a text charitably, not lightly ascribing irrationality to its author; and I can think of no rational purpose for this limit on which defendants may remove. Even respondent does not try to defend its rationality, suggesting instead that it simply reflects a legislative compromise. Yet there is no evidence that anyone thought of this potential loophole before CAFA was enacted, and it is hard to believe that any of CAFA’s would-be opponents agreed to vote for it in exchange for this way of keeping some cases in state court. The question is whether the uncharitable reading here is inescapable—whether, unwittingly or despite itself, Congress adopted text that compels this bizarre result.
In the initial pleading” that determines whether the amount in controversy is large enough. In both kinds of cases, a federal court trying to figure out if it has “original jurisdiction,” as required for removal of cases under §1441, must shut its eyes to the defendant’s filings. Only the plaintiff’s complaint counts.
HOSTILE STATE COURTS AND EXCESSIVE SETTLEMENTS
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Home Depot initiated this original tax appeal on March 2, 2007. On October 2, 2007, both Home Depot and the Department filed motions for summary judgment.
The Court held that Section 1441 did not permit removal by a third-party counterclaim defendant. Moreover, the Court held that Home Depot could not remove under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because the term "any defendant" in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1453 simply clarified that certain limitations on removal that might otherwise apply did not limit removal under § 1453. The Court averred that Congress did not expand the types of parties eligible to remove a class action under § 1453 beyond § 1441’s limits, so § 1453 did not permit a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove. Respondent’s final and most radical argument against petitioner’s CAFA claim is that CAFA’s removal language does not independently authorize removal at all. On this view, all that §1453 does is “make a few surgical changes [in certain class-action cases] to the procedures that ordinarily govern removal,” while the actual power to remove comes from the general removal provision, §1441. More to the point, even if third-party defendants could not secure the agreement needed to remove an entire civil action under §1441, counting them as “defendants” under §1441 would make a difference by allowing them to invoke §1441, which would permit them to remove certain claims without original defendants’ consent.
The general removal statute, which authorizes removal by “the defendant or the defendants,” thus ensures that defendants get an equal chance to choose a federal forum. Thus, although the term “any” ordinarily carries an “ ‘expansive meaning,’ ” post, at 10, the context here demonstrates that Congress did not expand the types of parties eligible to remove a class action under §1453 beyond §1441’s limits. If anything, that the language of §1453 mirrors the language in the statutory provisions it is amending suggests that the term “defendant” is being used consistently across all provisions.
Here, when Home Depot filed the notice of removal in October 2016, Jackson still had his counterclaim against Citibank. Thus, Citibank was still a party and the district court’s decision to remand was therefore correct. None of these considerations applies to third-party defendants.
Both stores allow customers to make purchases online, thus tagging in-stock merchandise for pickup at a local store of the customer's choosing. When determining which company is better for your needs, it's helpful to consider Lowe's and Home Depot's customer service, store atmosphere, return policies, online shopping, and in-store experience alongside each company's wider brand opportunities. The term "brick-and-mortar" refers to a traditional business that offers its products and services to its customers in an office or store, as opposed to an online-only business.
Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The Retail Litigation Center et al. (“Center”), in support of Home Depot, argues that if third-party defendants like Home Depot are not permitted to remove such cases to federal courts, a “tsunami” of interstate class-action claims will overwhelm state courts throughout the country. DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar (“DRI”), in support of Home Depot, posits that state courts are so hostile to corporate defendants that they are severely pressured to settle nearly any class action, such that the settlement is akin to a ransom to the class action attorneys.
Issue:
In addition, §§1453 and 1441 both rely on the procedures for removal in §1446, which also employs the term “defendant.” Interpreting that term to have different meanings in different sections would render the removal provisions incoherent. Citibank filed a state court debt-collection action, alleging that Jackson was liable for charges incurred on a Home Depot credit card. Jackson responded by filing third-party class-action claims against Home Depot and another, alleging that they had engaged in unlawful referral sales and deceptive and unfair trade practices under state law. Home Depot filed a notice to remove the case from state to federal court.
They do not “alter the meaning of the word” that they modify. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U. And so, just as a “ ‘critical habitat’ ” is a habitat, Weyerhaeuser Co., supra, at ___ (slip op., at 9), and “ ‘full costs’ ” are costs, Rimini Street, Inc., supra, at ___ (slip op., at 7), zebra finches are finches and third-party defendants are, well, defendants. We were asked to decide whether these loosened requirements are best read to allow removal by third-party defendants like Home Depot. The answer is clear when one considers Home Depot’s situation against CAFA’s language and history. Several reviewers mentioned Lowe's and Home Depot's online shopping experience in conjunction with store pickup.
No comments:
Post a Comment