United States: Class & Collective Action Newsletter - July 2, 2019


Decision in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson

Key Issue

Whether the general removal statute or the removal provision in the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) permit third-party defendants to remove class-action claims from state to Federal court.


Citibank sued George Jackson, the original defendant, in June 2016 in a debt-collection action in North Carolina state court. Jackson asserted an individual counterclaim against Citibank and named Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems, Inc. as additional third-party counterclaim defendants in a putative class action. Citibank dropped its claims, and Home Depot filed a notice of removal pursuant to CAFA. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint dropping Citibank from the action and moved to remand the case to state court. The District Court granted Jackson's motion to remand on the grounds that Home Depot was not entitled to remove the remaining class action.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (the general removal statute) limits the right of removal to "the defendant or the defendants," which does not include a counterclaim defendant even if added as a third party, and also rejected Home Depot's argument that CAFA, which allows removal by "any defendant," provides removal rights that include third-party counterclaim defendants.

In December 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the issue of whether third-party defendants are entitled to removal under CAFA and also directed the parties to address whether Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets,1 which bars original plaintiffs from removing counterclaims under the general removal statute, should be extended also to bar removal by third-party counterclaim defendants.


The Supreme Court held that a third-party counterclaim defendant cannot remove claims to Federal court either under the general removal statute or under CAFA's removal provision.2

Justice Thomas, who, in an unusual alignment, was joined by the four more usually liberal justices of the Court, held that in these removal provisions, "the term 'defendant' refers only to the party sued by the original plaintiff." The Court came to this conclusion based on an analysis of the text of the removal statute and the relevant Federal procedural rules. Specifically, the Court found that § 1441(a) refers to "civil actions" (not "claims") as to which the district court must have original jurisdiction to justify removal, and the relevant pleading therefore "is the action as defined by the plaintiff's complaint." The "defendant" to that action is the defendant to the complaint, not a party named in a counterclaim. Although the Majority acknowledged that the Dissent's reading of § 1453(b)'s use of the term "any defendant" as expanding the class of parties entitled to remove to include third-party defendants was "plausible," it held that the better reading of the statute was that the inclusion of the word "any" was simply to reinforce that all defendants were not required to consent to a removal under CAFA and that, as such, it was not intended to expand the class of parties who are permitted to remove. Having found that the term "defendant" did not include third-party counterclaim defendants under § 1441(a), the Court declared that the term "defendant" should have the same limited meaning in § 1453(b).

As a policy matter, Justice Thomas acknowledged the Dissent's argument that this opinion permits "defendants to use the statute as a 'tactic' to prevent removal," but noted that if Congress disapproves of this behavior, it can amend the text of the statute accordingly.

Justice Alito wrote a lengthy, detailed Dissent, which was joined by Justices Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. While noting the policy argument, Justice Alito also focused his arguments principally on a textual analysis of the removal statutes. In particular, he argued that "a 'defendant' is a 'person sued in a civil proceeding,'" and therefore plainly included third-party defendants as parties entitled to invoke CAFA's expanded removal rights.

Thoughts & Takeaways

This decision significantly extends the Court's holding in Shamrock, where the party who sought removal was both the original plaintiff and a counterclaim defendant. In Home Depot, the party seeking removal was a third-party counterclaim defendant and thus had no role in selecting the forum. The decision dramatically expands a previously-recognized loophole in CAFA if the statute were read not to permit removal of class-action counterclaims. In this case, such removal was not permitted even by new third-party defendants, even though they had no input into the selection of the forum, and even though the original plaintiff was no longer in the case.

The case represents an interesting clash between two schools of conservative thought. Justice Thomas's Majority opinion clearly reflects traditional deference to state courts and a reluctance to expand the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Justice Alito's Dissent arguably reflects the pro-business sentiments of the members of the Court who joined in his Dissent. The case is likely to have its greatest impact in the area of consumer-debt class-action claims. Firms interested in pursuing such claims will likely look for opportunities to take advantage of a state-law collection action as a platform from which they can launch class-action counterclaims that now may include multiple additional parties, all without the ability to remove the case to Federal court.

Read the decision here.

Denial of Certiorari in Hagan v. Khoja

Key Issue

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by imposing a duty to update on "a statement of historical fact that was accurate when made, where the 'value' or 'weight' of that prior statement was later 'diminished' by subsequent events."

Background & Decision

In 2015, Orexigen issued an "interim analysis" that its obesity drug reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 41%. Weeks later, new results from the study showed the drug offered no such benefits, which information Orexigen did not include in its subsequent SEC filing, which repeated the early claim of a successful interim test. Plaintiffs filed a putative securities class action, and the District Court dismissed, holding that Orexigen had not issued misleading statements because its earlier results were accurate when released and it had explicitly cautioned, including in its later statement, that more testing would be needed to precisely determine the drug's effects.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding, among other things, that although the results of the interim analysis were technically accurate, Orexigen had a duty to disclose that these results were "likely unreliable" because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had earlier told Orexigen that the results had a "high degree of uncertainty and were likely to change with the accumulation of additional data," and that it was also misleading to repeat the discussion of the earlier results without disclosing the results of the subsequent test. While the Ninth Circuit's opinion primarily engaged with the separate issues of the contours of the incorporation by reference and judicial notice doctrines, the petition for certiorari focused on what it claimed was the Ninth Circuit's newly-articulated standard of a "duty to update" when the "value" or "weight" of an historical fact has been "diminished" by subsequent events. Petitioners claimed this standard was at odds with those of other Circuits, which reject a duty to update or recognize a duty to update in narrow circumstances, but do not require an issuer to update a statement of historical fact that was accurate when made. On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.3

Thoughts & Takeaways

The decision to deny certiorari leaves intact this potential circuit split. Also still intact is the Ninth Circuit's primary holding not presented to the Supreme Court—that courts should exercise extreme caution when applying the incorporation by reference doctrine. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit noted that "it is improper to assume the truth of an incorporated document if such assumptions only serve to dispute facts stated in a well-pleaded complaint," and that it may be improper to consider a document that merely forms the basis of a defense to a plaintiff's claims.

Read the petition for certiorari here, and read the decision below here.

Denial of Certiorari in Fleshman v. Volkswagen, AG

Key Issue

The Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari seeking to challenge Volkswagen's $10 billion settlement in multidistrict litigation stemming from the diesel emissions scandal.4


In July 2018, the Ninth Circuit upheld a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approving a $10 billion settlement with a class of owners and former owners of certain Volkswagen automobiles implicated in the emissions scandal that came to light in 2015.

Ronald Clark Fleshman, Jr. was one of a small number of objectors, all of whose appeals were denied by the Ninth Circuit. Fleshman contended that the settlement created a risk of liability under the Clean Air Act (CAA) because it allowed class members to continue driving their vehicles while waiting for an emissions modification solution from Volkswagen or, alternatively, allowed them to opt out of the settlement and drive or resell unmodified vehicles. Fleshman argued that this risk—and the settlement notice's failure to advise class members of it—rendered the settlement unfair and unreasonable. In his petition for certiorari, Fleshman argued, inter alia, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrongly stated that the vehicles were "legal to drive and resell," and that the District Court abused its discretion in approving a settlement that condoned conduct in violation of the CAA and related state implementation plans.

Thoughts & Takeaways

The Court's denial of certiorari leaves in place the Ninth Circuit's finding that the risk of liability Fleshman raised was so improbable at the time of settlement that there was no need to explain it to class members or to protect them from it. This finding was not based on assessment of Fleshman's interpretation of the CAA, however, but rather on the more practical consideration that the EPA and most states had clearly indicated that they would allow consumers to continue driving unmodified vehicles.

Read the petition for certiorari here, and read the decision below here.

To view this Newsletter in full, please click here.


1. 313 U.S. 100 (1941).

2. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. — (May 28, 2019).

3. Hagan v. Khoja, No. 18-1010 (May 20, 2019).

4. Fleshman v. Volkswagen, AG, No. 18-1264 (May 28, 2019).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions