U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 89— DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 1453

Removal of class actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Definitions.—In this section, the terms “class”, “class action”, “class certification order”, and “class member” shall have the meanings given such terms under section 1332(d)(1).(b)In General.—A class action may be removed to a district court of the United States in accordance with section 1446 (except that the 1-year limitation under section 1446(c)(1) shall not apply), without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought, except that such action may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants.(c)Review of Remand Orders.—(1)In general.—Section 1447 shall apply to any removal of a case under this section, except that notwithstanding section 1447(d), a court of appeals may accept an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand a class action to the State court from which it was removed if application is made to the court of appeals not more than 10 days after entry of the order.(2)Time period for judgment.—If the court of appeals accepts an appeal under paragraph (1), the court shall complete all action on such appeal, including rendering judgment, not later than 60 days after the date on which such appeal was filed, unless an extension is granted under paragraph (3).(3)Extension of time period.—The court of appeals may grant an extension of the 60-day period described in paragraph (2) if—(A) all parties to the proceeding agree to such extension, for any period of time; or(B) such extension is for good cause shown and in the interests of justice, for a period not to exceed 10 days.(4)Denial of appeal.—If a final judgment on the appeal under paragraph (1) is not issued before the end of the period described in paragraph (2), including any extension under paragraph (3), the appeal shall be denied.(d)Exception.—This section shall not apply to any class action that solely involves—(1) a claim concerning a covered security as defined under section 16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 78p(f)(3) 11 So in original. Probably should be “77p(f)(3)”.) and section 28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78bb(f)(5)(E));(2) a claim that relates to the internal affairs or governance of a corporation or other form of business enterprise and arises under or by virtue of the laws of the State in which such corporation or business enterprise is incorporated or organized; or(3) a claim that relates to the rights, duties (including fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any security (as defined under section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1)) and the regulations issued thereunder).(Added Pub. L. 109–2, § 5(a), Feb. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 12; amended Pub. L. 111–16, § 6(2), May 7, 2009, 123 Stat. 1608; Pub. L. 112–63, title I, § 103(d)(2), Dec. 7, 2011, 125 Stat. 762.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–63 substituted “1446(c)(1)” for “1446(b)”.

2009—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 111–16 substituted “not more than 10 days” for “not less than 7 days”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–63 effective upon the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on Dec. 7, 2011, and applicable to any action or prosecution commenced on or after such effective date, with provisions for treatment of cases removed to Federal court, see section 105 of Pub. L. 112–63, set out as a note under section 1332 of this title.

Effective Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–16 effective Dec. 1, 2009, see section 7 of Pub. L. 111–16, set out as a note under section 109 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Effective Date

Section applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Feb. 18, 2005, see section 9 of Pub. L. 109–2, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 1332 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 663 cases (160 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 20× “We granted ATTM permission to appeal, and we possess jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1453 (c)(1). II. ATTM makes two principal arguments.”
Dominion Energy, Inc. v. City of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys. Ex Rel. Situated, 928 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 21× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (b). Congress, however, has excluded from CAFA's jurisdictional reach three types of class actions, even when such actions otherwise satisfy CAFA's jurisdictional criteria.”
Andrew Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 10× “3d at 1202–03; 9 The order granting Kolter’s application began a sixty-day period within which this Court must “complete all action on such appeal, including rendering judgment,” 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (c)(2). See Evans v. Walter Indus.”
Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019). · cites it 4× “" 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (b). In this case, we address whether either provision allows a third-party counterclaim defendant-that is, a party *1746 brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant-to remove the counterclaim filed against it.”
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “We granted Nevada’s request for leave to appeal the district court’s denial of its motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (c)(1). We conclude that because parens patriae actions are not removable under CAFA, and the action does not otherwise satisfy CAFA’s “mass action”…”
Westwood Apex v. Contreras, 644 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 20× “" 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (b). In this appeal, we address whether CAFA Section 5, 28 U.”
Est. of Pew v. Cardarelli, 527 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 11× “Defendants filed the present petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (c), seeking permission to appeal the district court's remand order.”
Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “§ 1332 (d)(2)(A), Advance America removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (b). It claimed that it satisfied the requirement of "minimal diversity," as defined in § 1332(d)(2)(A), because either (1) it is a citizen of Delaware, where it was incorporated, even…”
Leslie Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “May 22, 2006); see 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (c)(1) (notwithstanding 28 U.”
Sabrina Roppo v. Travelers Com. Ins., 869 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “Roppo sought permission from this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (c)(1), to file an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s denial of her motion.”
Romia Pritchett, on Behalf of Himself & All Other Individuals Similarly Situated v. Off. Depot, Inc., 420 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 7× “at 12-13 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1453 ). On March 1, 2005, just two weeks before trial was scheduled to begin, Defendant removed this action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, utilizing the newly-enacted provisions in 28 U.”
Michael Bauer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 845 F.3d 350 (7th Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “2010), we held that a counterclaim-defendant is not entitled to remove a case from state court to federal court under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act-(CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (b). Today’s case presents a related question: whether, even though the original…”
Show all 663 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b) — 5 cases
Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2009). “We granted ATTM permission to appeal, and we possess jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1453 (c)(1). II. ATTM makes two principal arguments.”
Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC, 455 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2006).
Holleman v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles L L C (W.D. La. 2019).
Natasha Denona Trading, Ltd v. Capacity LLC (D.N.J. 2019).
Palisades Collections LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (4th Cir. 2008).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) — 2 cases
Romia Pritchett, on Behalf of Himself & All Other Individuals Similarly Situated v. Off. Depot, Inc., 420 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2005). “at 12-13 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1453 ). On March 1, 2005, just two weeks before trial was scheduled to begin, Defendant removed this action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, utilizing the newly-enacted provisions in 28 U.”
McFarland v. Capital One, N.A. (D. Maryland 2019).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) — 2 cases
City of Walker v. State of Louisiana (5th Cir. 2017).
Hsbc Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Arnett, 767 F. Supp. 2d 827 (N.D. Ohio 2011).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.