Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
David Saab, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware Corporation
David Saab, on Behalf of Himself & All Others Similarly Situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Del. Corp., 469 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2006)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2006-11-22
- Topic
- general
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge. David Saab filed a suit against Home Depot in Missouri state court on behalf of himself and others. Home Depot removed the putative class action to federal district court 1 , showing that the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) (traditional diversity jurisdiction), 1441 (describing removal). The district court then denied Saab’s motion to remand his case to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed David Saab, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 6 opinions
SAAB v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,469 F.3d 758(8th Cir. 2006)
David SAAB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Petitioner, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Respondent.
No. 06-8014.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: September 26, 2006.
Filed: November 22, 2006.
S. Stewart Haskins, II, argued, Atlanta, Georgia (Dwight J. Davis, Atlanta, Georgia, Cathy J. Dean, Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin, and Matthew C. Hans, Kansas City, Missouri, on the brief), for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Our authority to review the denial of a motion to remand is strictly limited. See28 U.S.C. § 1447(d);Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis,519 U.S. 61,74,117 S.Ct. 467,136 L.Ed.2d 437(1996) (order denying motion to remand generally not final order subject to review). Saab, however, attempts to avail himself of the review provisions contained in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), Pub.L. No.109-2,119 Stat. 4(2005). CAFA vests original jurisdiction in the federal district courts if a class action meets several criteria.2See28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). In order to "develop a body of appellate law interpreting the legislation without unduly delaying the litigation of class actions," S.Rep. No. 109-14, at 49 (2005), the Act permits our court to "accept an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand a class action." See28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
Saab urges us to interpret § 1453(c)(1) expansively and to give federal courts of appeal the jurisdiction to review the grant or denial of a motion to remandanyclass action.
This argument does not differentiate between class actions removed pursuant to § 1332(a) (traditional diversity jurisdiction) or § 1332(d) (CAFA diversity jurisdiction). We reject this contention.
CAFA added section § 1453(c), "Review of remand orders," which applies "to any removal of a case under this section."See28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). Saab suggests that "this section" must refer to § 1453, which, according to petitioner, does not limit its scope to class actions removed under § 1332(d). Section 1453(a), however, defines "class", "class action", "class certification order", and "class member" by reference to § 1332(d)(1), the diversity jurisdiction provision added by CAFA.See§ 1453(a).
Thus, we do not interpret "class action" as it is employed in § 1453(c) to encompassallclass actions. Rather, we must limit § 1453(c)'s review provisions to those class actions brought under CAFA. Our reading is consistent with the legislativePage 760history of CAFA, which includes the observation that, "[n]ew subsection 1453(c) provides discretionary appellate review of remand ordersunder this legislationbut also imposes time limits." S.Rep. No. 109-14, at 49 (emphasis added).
We therefore hold, joining our sister the Fifth Circuit,see Patterson v. Morris,448 F.3d 736,742(5th Cir.2006);Wallace v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins.Corp.,444 F.3d 697,700(5th Cir.2006), that the review provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) are limited to class actions brought under CAFA,28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for permission to appeal.Page 1153