Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> The UCL Practitioner

Class Action

: The UCL Practitioner

New Ninth Circuit CAFA opinion: United Steel v. Shell Oil Co.

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

On April 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit handed down a new CAFA opinion, United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2010).  The court held that once a case is properly removed under CAFA, the federal courts continue to have jurisdiction even if class certification is ultimately denied: 

Defendants removed this putative class action from state court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453. After denying class certification, the district court concluded that it no longer had jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court. We accepted defendants? appeal to consider whether the denial of class certification divests federal courts of jurisdiction over cases removed under § 1332(d). Today we join the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits in holding that it does not. If the putative class action was properly removed to begin with, the subsequent denial of Rule 23 class certification does not divest the district court of jurisdiction. The case remains removed and is not to be remanded to state court.

Slip op. at 6025-26 (footnote omitted).   In so holding, the court followed the lead of two sister circuits: 

Only the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have squarely considered this issue, and both have held that the post-removal denial of class certification does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction. See Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., 592 F.3d 805, 806-07 (7th Cir. 2010); Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 n.12 (11th Cir. 2009).

Id. at 6029-30.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on May 11, 2010 (boomark / email).