Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson
139 S. Ct. 1743
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- Citibank sued George Jackson in North Carolina state court to collect on a Home Depot credit-card debt; Jackson answered and asserted an individual counterclaim against Citibank and third‑party class claims against Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems (CWS).
- Citibank later dismissed its claim; Jackson amended to remove references to Citibank, leaving only the class claims against Home Depot and CWS.
- Home Depot (a third‑party counterclaim defendant) filed a notice removing the case to federal court citing diversity and CAFA; Jackson moved to remand.
- The district court granted remand; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding neither 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) nor CAFA §1453(b) authorized removal by a third‑party counterclaim defendant.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a third‑party counterclaim defendant may remove under §1441(a) or §1453(b).
Issues
| Issue | Jackson (Plaintiff/Remand) | Home Depot (Defendant/Removal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) permits removal by a third‑party counterclaim defendant | §1441(a) refers to the defendant(s) named in the plaintiff’s complaint; a counterclaim defendant is not that defendant and thus cannot remove | A third‑party counterclaim defendant is still a “defendant” to the claim against it and may remove under §1441(a) | No — §1441(a) does not permit removal by third‑party counterclaim defendants; “defendant” means the defendant to the plaintiff’s original complaint |
| Whether CAFA §1453(b) permits removal by a third‑party counterclaim defendant | §1453(b) does not change who qualifies as a removable “defendant”; it only relaxes consent and forum‑defendant limits for class actions | CAFA’s phrase “any defendant” expansively includes any party being sued (including third‑party defendants) and thus authorizes removal | No — §1453(b) does not override §1441(a)’s limitation; “any defendant” clarifies consent and forum exceptions, not who may remove |
| Whether Shamrock Oil v. Sheets requires or supports allowing third‑party counterclaim defendants to remove | Shamrock Oil bars original plaintiffs (who become counterclaim defendants) from removing; that rationale does not extend to third‑party defendants | Shamrock Oil should not be read to exclude third‑party defendants; its reasons disfavor original plaintiffs only | Majority: Shamrock Oil supports treating counterclaim defendants as outside §1441’s “defendants” (so third‑party defendants also excluded); Dissent: Shamrock Oil does not support exclusion and third‑party defendants should count |
Key Cases Cited
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (held original plaintiffs who are countersued may not remove under predecessor removal statute)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; statutory basis required)
- Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002) (counterclaims cannot create federal‑question jurisdiction under well‑pleaded complaint rule)
- Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U.S. 201 (1895) (original filing controls whether a civil action could have been brought in federal court)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (district courts lack jurisdiction absent statutory grant)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (no antiremoval presumption applies to CAFA; removal provisions should be read in context)
- Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008) (the word “any” generally has expansive meaning)