Table of Content
Or it might appear that way, which is almost as deleterious. For example, a party bringing suit in its own State’s courts might enjoy, so to speak, a home court advantage against outsiders. Thus, from 1789 Congress has opened federal courts to certain disputes between citizens of different States. Plaintiffs, of course, can avail themselves of the federal option in such cases by simply choosing to file a case in federal court. But since their defendants cannot, the law has always given defendants the option to remove cases to federal court. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets,313 U.S. 100, 105 .
However, Lowe's does have the competitive advantage of larger stores (but the garden centers for plants at Lowe's vs. Home Depot are generally equal). Terms like "grimy" and "disorganized" were used to describe the poor store atmosphere with either corporation. In particular, customers felt that the garden centers and lumber areas of both stores were the sections that most suffered from neglect.
Languages
In other words, the issue here is who can remove under that provision, not which cases can be removed. However we resolved that “who” question, removability under §1441 would still require cases to fall within federal courts’ “original jurisdiction,” §1441, and that would still turn just on the plaintiff’s choices—on whether the plaintiff had raised federal claims . So a case that a plaintiff had brought “in state court under state law,” id., at 832, would remain beyond federal jurisdiction, and thus unremovable under §1441, even if we held that third-party defendants are “defendants” under that provision. To circumvent CAFA's more generous removal provisions, consumer lawyers devised yet another tactic. This approach involved bootstrapping a class action in the form of a third-party counterclaim to an already-existing lawsuit against a consumer. For example, when a consumer is sued for an unpaid bill relating to the business they intend to sue, they would file a third-party countercomplaint against that business containing the claim they originally planned to sue the business for.
Instead of allowing removal by “the defendant or the defendants,” see §1441, §5 of CAFA allowed removal by “any defendant” to certain class actions, §1453, even when the other defendants do not consent, the case was filed in a defendant’s home forum, or the case has been pending in state court for more than a year. But defendants cannot remove a case unless it meets certain conditions. Some of those conditions have long made important consumer class actions virtually impossible to remove. Congress, concerned that state courts were biased against defendants to such actions, passed a law facilitating their removal. The Class Action Fairness Act of allows removal of certain class actions “by any defendant.” 28 U.
Views
Defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” §1441. Section 1453 then states that “ class action . May be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants.” This language simply amends the rule that “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.” §1446.
Both stores tend to be focused on steering customers to specific brands. No reviewers complained about issues like aisle end-caps devoted to store and exclusive brands, but many did take issue with the quality of those brands. In particular, Lowe's customers complained about Kobalt tools, and Home Depot customers complained about Husky brand tools. The fact that Home Depot is considered a “third-party defendant” changes nothing here. Adjectives like “third-party” “modify nouns—they pick out a subset of a category that possesses a certain quality.” Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 586 U.
Opinion
V. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U. ___, ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp.,496 U.S. 633, 650 ; quotation altered). Because the decisions misreading Shamrock Oil are not a reliable indicator of Congress’s intent regarding §1441, we owe them no deference. In respondent’s telling, it has been the uniform view of the lower courts that a third-party defendant is not among “the defendants” empowered to remove under §1441.
Since those courts’ decisions studded the legal “backdrop” when Congress enacted CAFA, respondent contends, we should presume CAFA used “defendant” in the same narrow sense. But this story exaggerates both the degree of lower court harmony and the salience of the resulting “backdrop” to Congress’s work on CAFA. But both kinds of parties are defendants to legal claims.
CAN CLASS ACTION COUNTERCLAIMS BE REMOVED?
Though original and third-party defendants are rivals as to claims brought by the one against the other, they may well agree that a federal forum would be preferable. After all, neither will have chosen the state forum in which both find themselves prior to removal. The procedural rules for removing an action or claim from state to federal court under §1441 are set forth in §1446. Section 1446 requires the consent of all the defendants before an entire case may be re- moved under §1441. At issue here is whether the term “defendant” in either §1441 or §1453 encompasses a party brought into a lawsuit to defend against a counterclaim filed by the original defendant or whether the provisions limit removal authority to the original defendant.
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.
As of Feb. 20, 2022, Home Depot has 2,303 stores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Canada, and Mexico. They compete for a shared customer base across the U.S. and Canada. When Home Depot launched its modernization program in 2007, almost all of Lowe’s mechanized distribution centers were already in place, giving credence to the perception that Lowe’s had enjoyed a logistical advantage over its rival for many years. Lowe’s stores are even larger, with an average enclosed space of about 112,000 square feet and about 32,000 square feet of garden space. Both retailers go after the same market, but their branding and supply-chain strategies are different.
Jackson moved to remand, arguing that precedent barred removal by a “third-party/additional counter defendant like Home Depot.” App. Shortly thereafter, Jackson amended his third-party class-action claims to remove any reference to Citibank. We have often explained that “ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,511 U.S. 375, 377 .
The result, in Congress’s judgment, was that “State and local courts” were keeping issues of “national importance” out of federal court, “acting in ways that demonstrate bias against out-of-State defendants” and imposing burdens that hindered “innovation” and drove up “consumer prices.” §§2, , 119Stat. The article is right to call this approach a tactic; it subverts CAFA’s evident aims. Of course, what finally matters is the text, and in reading texts we must remember that “no legislation pursues its purposes at all costs,” Rodriguez v. United States,480 U.S. 522, 525–526 ; Congress must often strike a balance between competing purposes.
To curb these inefficiencies, the Reform Act “limit recoverable damages and attorney’s fees, . Impose new restrictions on the selection of lead plaintiffs, mandate imposition of sanctions for frivolous litigation, and authorize a stay of discovery pending resolution of any motion to dismiss.” Ibid. Each day, Home Depot transmitted information to the finance companies relating to the private label credit card charges made that day and the sales tax attributable thereto.
Dissenting opinion
While §1441 normally allows removal of either kind of case, it bars removal in diversity cases brought in the home State of any defendant. In addition to granting federal courts jurisdiction over certain types of cases, Congress has enacted provisions that permit parties to remove cases originally filed in state court to federal court. Section 1441, the general removal statute, permits “the defendant or the defendants” in a state-court action over which the federal courts would have original jurisdiction to remove that action to federal court. To remove under this provision, a party must meet the requirements for removal detailed in other provisions. For one, a defendant cannot remove unilaterally.
Article III, §2, of the Constitution delineates “he character of the controversies over which federal judicial authority may extend.” Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee,456 U.S. 694, 701 . And lower federal-court jurisdiction “is further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction.” Ibid. Accordingly, “the district courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent a statutory basis.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.,545 U.S. 546, 552 .
No comments:
Post a Comment