Polo v. Innoventions International, LLC
833 F.3d 1193
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Polo sued Innoventions in California state court; CAFA removed the case to federal court for original CAFA jurisdiction over class actions.
- Polo alleged CLRA and other claims; TAC included a CLRA claim predicated on deceptive marketing of DiabeStevia for diabetes.
- District court granted summary judgment for lack of Article III standing, noting Polo did not have diabetes and was refunded the purchase price.
- The district court dismissed the case; Polo appealed arguing the case should be remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- Court holds removal lacking jurisdiction requires remand under § 1447(c) and remand applies to CAFA removals as well; Bell futility doctrine rejected as mere possible mootness remains uncertain.
- Court reverses and remands for remand to state court, noting standing issues and CLRA mootness considerations still unresolved on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1447(c) requires remand when removal lacks jurisdiction in CAFA case. | Polo argues district court must remand under § 1447(c) upon lack of jurisdiction. | Innoventions contends § 1447(c) does not apply or remand would be futile. | Yes; § 1447(c) applies to CAFA removals and requires remand. |
| Whether the futility doctrine allows dismissal instead of remand. | Remand not futile given potential standing on remand. | Bell doctrine allows dismissal if remand would be futile. | Bell futility is not controlled; remand required as not absolutely certain to be futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steel, Paper & Rubber Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010) (removal context and jurisdictional concerns in CAFA-like scenarios)
- International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (Supreme Court 1991) (Supreme Court rejected futility exception to remand rule)
- Bell v. City of Kellogg, 922 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1991) (futility doctrine requiring absolute certainty of dismissal on remand)
- Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (remand preferred when jurisdiction lacking; procedural defects vs. jurisdictional)
- Me. Ass’n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Comm’r, Me. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 1051 (1st Cir. 1989) (CAFA remand and §1447 applicability across circuits)