One defendant's timely notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 is sufficient to remove the entire action, even if other defendants file their notices of removal too late. United Steel, Paper & Forestry v. Shell Oil Company (9th Cir. 2008) __ F.3d __.
Defendants Shell Oil Company and Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company were sued in a single wage and hour class action in state court. Each filed separate notices of renewal, relying, in part, upon CAFA's provisions at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, as a basis of jurisdiction. Shell's notice was filed on the 30th day after service upon the first defendant. Tesoro's notice was filed a day later.
After opening two separate cases, the District Court remanded Shell’s case on the ground that Tesoro had failed to consent to removal within thirty days of service on the first-served defendant, and then remanded Tesoro’s case for the same reason. Shell and Tesoro filed separate petitions for permission to appeal, which were granted. The Ninth Circuit then held that under § 1453(b) of CAFA, Shell’s timely notice of removal effected removal of the entire action, including the claims against Tesoro, and the trial court's orders to remand the cases back to state court were erroneous.
You can download the full text of the opinion at this link.
Comments