954 F.3d 831
6th Cir.2020Background
- In June 2018 Michigan’s Attorney General sued AmeriGas in state court under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) § 445.910, alleging unfair propane‑pricing practices and seeking to represent Michigan consumers.
- MCPA § 445.910 authorizes the Attorney General to “bring a class action” on behalf of state residents for actual damages caused by unlawful trade practices.
- AmeriGas removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), arguing the AG’s suit qualifies as a CAFA "class action."
- The district court remanded, concluding § 445.910 lacks Rule 23’s core prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and therefore is not a CAFA‑removable class action.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed the remand de novo and affirmed: § 445.910 is not “similar” to Rule 23 for CAFA purposes; the case was remanded to state court.
- A separate concurrence agreed with the judgment but emphasized that permitting removal would create tension because the suit likely could not satisfy Federal Rule 23 in federal court and raised an untimely removal point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Michigan/AG) | Defendant's Argument (AmeriGas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an AG suit under MCPA § 445.910 is a removable “class action” under CAFA | § 445.910 is not similar to Rule 23 because it does not require Rule 23’s core elements, so it is not CAFA‑removable | § 445.910 authorizes a “class action” and thus falls within CAFA’s definition permitting removal | Court: Not a CAFA class—§ 445.910 lacks Rule 23 core requirements; remand affirmed |
| Whether Michigan Ct. Rule 3.501 makes § 445.910 “similar” to Rule 23 | Rule 3.501 does not apply to AG enforcement actions because the AG is not a class member | Rule 3.501 should be read to supply Rule 23‑like requirements, making § 445.910 similar | Court: Rule 3.501 does not apply to AG‑brought § 445.910 actions and cannot render § 445.910 similar to Rule 23 |
| Proper interpretation of “similar” in CAFA—must state law impose Rule 23 core prerequisites? | CAFA’s “similar” requires state law to provide numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation like Rule 23 | “Similar” can be read more broadly to require only that a representative person may sue for a class | Court (majority): similarity requires Rule 23‑like core elements; Concurrence: reaches same result emphasizing conflict with Rule 23 and practical impossibility of a federal class |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (standards for removal jurisdiction)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2014) (CAFA removal/jurisdiction mechanics)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2010) (interaction of state law and Federal Rules re class actions)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (typicality and class representative must be part of the class)
- West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011) (state AG representative/parens patriae suits not CAFA class when statute lacks Rule 23 requirements)
- Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2013) (similar holding re AG enforcement actions and CAFA)
- Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011) (AG‑brought actions not CAFA class absent Rule 23‑like procedure)
- LG Display Co. v. Madigan, 665 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2011) (same)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (federal courts should not lightly seize state‑brought cases)
- Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2000) (clear‑statement principle when altering federal‑state balance)