Michael Bauer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
845 F.3d 350
7th Cir.2017Background
- Tri-State sued Stacey and Michael Bauer in Illinois small claims court for unpaid water-treatment equipment; the Bauers answered and filed a multi-state class-action counterclaim against Tri-State.
- The Bauers amended to add Home Depot and Aquion as additional counterclaim-defendants; Home Depot was served March 15, 2016.
- Home Depot removed to federal court under CAFA, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), arguing an additional counterclaim-defendant may remove without consent of all defendants.
- The Bauers moved to remand, arguing CAFA does not allow counterclaim-defendants (original or added) to remove; the district court granted remand.
- Home Depot appealed for permission to appeal under § 1453(c); the Seventh Circuit considered whether an additional counterclaim-defendant can remove a CAFA action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bauers) | Defendant's Argument (Home Depot) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an additional counterclaim-defendant may remove a CAFA class action under § 1453(b) | §1453(b) does not broaden “defendant”; only original defendants may remove; counterclaim-defendants cannot remove | The phrase “any defendant” in §1453(b) allows any party brought in by service (including added counterclaim-defendants) to remove without all defendants’ consent | An additional counterclaim-defendant cannot remove under §1453(b); remand affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- First Bank v. DJL Properties, LLC, 598 F.3d 915 (7th Cir. 2010) (held original plaintiff-counterclaim-defendant may not remove under CAFA; “any defendant” limited to original defendants)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (original plaintiffs who become counterclaim-defendants cannot remove)
- West v. Aurora City, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 139 (1867) (removal privilege limited to defendants who have not submitted to state court jurisdiction)
- Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2008) (additional counterclaim-defendant may not remove under §1453(b))
- Westwood Apex v. Contreras, 644 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejected added counterclaim-defendant removal under CAFA; reading would negate "without the consent of all defendants" language)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (CAFA removal does not require the removing defendant to prove amount-in-controversy at time of filing; noted no anti-removal presumption for CAFA)