Table of Content
When you return the item with a receipt within a reasonable period, you can get cash back. When you return without a receipt, you can get store credit. If you used a credit card, you do not need to show a receipt, as your credit card is recognized when you swipe for the return. You won't likely find the same level of expertise at a big box store, but according to Yelp reviews, the staff at both Home Depot and Lowe's were found to be adept at the basics expected of home improvement store employees, such as directing customers to the right aisles and ringing up purchases correctly. Both retailers engage in a battle of prices daily.
But Bland, in responding to a question from Justice Elena Kagan, agreed that original jurisdiction is determined "at the beginning," so a later counterclaim cannot create original jurisdiction. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned Barnette's reasoning. She pointed out that, "putting this outside the class action setting, ... all defendants have to agree to removal" and Jackson was also a defendant in this action.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. ___ (
Retail customers consist of two distinct types. So-called “do-it-for-me” retail customers are less likely to undertake projects on their own and more likely to pay extra for installation services. In contrast, the “do-it-yourself” retail customers prefer to buy raw materials and complete their projects independently. Supplemental jurisdiction covers those claims “so related” to federal claims that they are “part of the same case or controversy under Article III,” 28 U. §1367, in that they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” Mine Workers v. Gibbs,383 U.S. 715, 725 .
The American Association for Justice (“Association”), in support of Jackson, fears the opposite result, arguing that permitting third-party removal would leave the door wide open for defendants to remove all sorts of cases that are primarily of state interest to federal courts. The National Consumer Law Center (“NCLC”), in support of Jackson, suggests that fears of flooding the state courts are wholly unfounded, given that state court class action counterclaims simply occur too rarely to risk such flooding. Indeed, the NCLC explains that such counterclaims only arise in rare situations and that there simply are not enough opportunities for these situations to arise and flood state courts. This case asks the Supreme Court whether a third-party defendant in a state court class action may remove a counterclaim from state court to federal court. Petitioner Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. (“Home Depot”) argues that the Supreme Court’s case Shamrock Oil & Gas Co. v. Sheets, which holds that an original plaintiff may not remove a counterclaim to federal court, does not apply to third-party defendants.
Third-party counterclaim
As of 2020, the average Home Depot store has about 105,000 square feet of enclosed space and about 24,000 square feet of outdoor space for garden products. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined.
Co. v. United States Life Ins. Even a treatise cited by respondent destroys his “consensus” claim, as it admits that courts take “myriad and diverging views on whether third-party defendants may remove an action.” 16 J. Moore, D. Coquillette, G. Joseph, & G. Vario, Moore’s Federal Practice §107.41 (3d ed. 2019). In a 5-4 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the U.S.
Opinion
Jackson points out that the Shamrock Oil Court barred plaintiffs from removing based on a counterclaim even when the original action had to be filed in state court because federal jurisdiction was not available. Thus, according to Jackson, the holding in Shamrock Oil applies to defendants even when they never had the opportunity to invoke federal court jurisdiction. Second, Home Depot argued that Citibank, the original plaintiff, was no longer in the case, meaning Home Depot is no longer a "third-party defendant"—and is instead simply a defendant that should be entitled to remove. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, however, emphasizing that the validity of removal is evaluated at the time when the notice of removal is filed.
All agree that if one party sues another, the latter—the original defendant—is a “defendant” under both removal laws. But suppose the original defendant then countersues, bringing claims against both the plaintiff and a new party. Is this new defendant—the “third-party defendant”—also a “defendant” under CAFA and §1441?
Instead, all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action. Moreover, when federal jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction, the case generally must be removed within 1 year after commencement of the action, § 1446, and the case may not be removed if any defendant is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought, § 1441. Section 1453 does not permit removal by a third-party counterclaim defendant. And neither clause—nor anything else in the statute—alters §1441’s limitation on who can remove, suggesting that Congress intended to leave that limit in place.
Under §1441, “any civil action brought in a State court . May be removed by the defendant or the defendants” as long as federal district courts would have “original jurisdiction” over the case. Such jurisdiction comes in two varieties. Federal courts have “federal question ju- risdiction” if the case “aris under” federal law—for instance, if the plaintiff alleges violations of a federal statute. But even when the plaintiff brings only state-law claims—alleging a breach of a contract, for example—federal courts have “diversity jurisdiction” if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of parties, meaning that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as any defendant. §1332; Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche,546 U.S. 81, 89 .
Section 1441 does not permit removal by a third-party counterclaim defendant. Home Depot emphasizes that it is a “defendant” to a “claim,” but §1441 refers to “civil action,” not “claims.” And because the action as defined by the plaintiff’s complaint is the “civil action . Of which the district cour” must have “original jurisdiction,” “the defendant” to that action is the defendant to the complaint, not a party named in a counterclaim. This conclusion is bolstered by the use of the term “defendant” in related contexts. For one, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure differentiate between third-party defendants, counterclaim defendants, and defendants.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (“Section 1441”), a defendant may remove a case from the state court to federal court, as long as the federal court was otherwise a proper venue at the time of filing. In Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, the Supreme Court clarified that only an original defendant could remove to federal court; plaintiffs may not do so, even if there are counterclaims brought against them. For class actions, however, CAFA eliminates many of the traditional restrictions on a defendant’s ability to remove a case. In Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, the Fourth Circuit limited CAFA’s scope by deeming it inapplicable to counter-defendants like Home Depot. To this general removal regime, CAFA made several changes specific to class actions.
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.
There are, of course, some differences between original and third-party defendants. One is brought into a case by the first major filing, the other by the second. The one filing is called a complaint, the other a countercomplaint.
Former tram depot, Sachsenhausen, Frankfurt am Main, Hesse, Germany, Europe, PublicGround
These principles set the stage for the Court's analysis because they assigned the burden of persuasion. To succeed, Home Depot would have needed to convince the Court that either the general removal statute or CAFA authorized removal. Note, however, that the cited terms would have covered even original plaintiffs, whom no one thinks CAFA meant to reach . So CAFA’s terms had to be narrower than the AIA’s “any party,” regardless of whether CAFA was going to cover third-party defendants. Its failure to use the AIA’s and Bankruptcy Code’s broader terms, then, tells us nothing about third-party defendants’ status under CAFA.
No comments:
Post a Comment