421 F.Supp.3d 507
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Michigan Attorney General (AG) investigated Amerigas propane pricing and filed a state-court complaint under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), seeking relief on behalf of Michigan consumers and invoking §§ 445.905, 445.910, and 445.911.
- The AG filed a consolidated motion for class certification in state court; defendants removed the case to federal court under CAFA, alleging class-size, minimal diversity, and >$5 million in controversy.
- Central legal question: whether the AG’s suit brought under MCPA § 445.910 (and parens patriae claims under § 445.911) qualifies as a "class action" under CAFA because § 1332(d)(1)(B) covers actions filed under Rule 23 or a "similar State statute."
- Defendants argued MCPA plus Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 3.501 render the suit similar to Rule 23; AG argued MCR 3.501 does not apply to AG-initiated actions and § 445.910 lacks Rule 23’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.
- The court found MCR 3.501 inapplicable to AG suits (the AG is not a member of the putative class) and concluded § 445.910 does not impose Rule 23–style prerequisites and therefore is not a "similar" statute for CAFA purposes.
- Result: Motion to remand granted; case remanded to Monroe County Circuit Court. AG’s request for attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) was denied because removal was objectively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit is a "class action" under CAFA (§ 1332(d)(1)(B)) | Nessel: § 445.910 does not incorporate Rule 23’s requirements; naming a "class action" in statute is insufficient | Amerigas: § 445.910 authorizes class actions and, with MCR 3.501, is similar to Rule 23 | Held: § 445.910 is not "similar" to Rule 23 because it lacks numerosity/commonality/typicality/ adequacy requirements; CAFA jurisdiction lacking |
| Applicability of MCR 3.501 to AG suits under MCPA | Nessel: MCR 3.501 applies to "one or more members of a class"; AG is not a class member, so rule is inapplicable | Amerigas: MCR 3.501 governs Michigan class actions generally, including AG actions | Held: MCR 3.501 does not apply to AG actions under § 445.910; applying it would conflict with the AG’s statutory prerogative |
| Whether parens patriae claims (§ 445.911) convert the suit into a CAFA "class action" | Nessel: Parens patriae authority does not impose Rule 23–type requirements and is not a CAFA class action | Amerigas: Parens patriae claims functionally create a class action for CAFA purposes | Held: Parens patriae claims do not qualify as CAFA class actions because the statute lacks Rule 23–style criteria |
| Award of attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Nessel: Requests fees for removal being improper | Amerigas: Removal was objectively reasonable based on CAFA authority and circuit precedent | Held: Fees denied; defendants had an objectively reasonable basis to remove |
Key Cases Cited
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (jurisdictional standard for CAFA removal)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (party invoking federal jurisdiction bears burden of proof)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (standards for awarding fees on remand)
- West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae actions not CAFA class actions where state statute lacks Rule 23 criteria)
- LG Display Co. v. Madigan, 665 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2011) (similar holding on AG parens patriae suits and CAFA jurisdiction)
- Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae suits lacking numerosity/commonality/typicality/adequacy are not CAFA class actions)
- A Forever Recovery, Inc. v. Twp. of Pennfield, [citation="606 F. App'x 279"] (6th Cir. 2015) (awarding fees inappropriate if removal was objectively reasonable)