State of New Hampshire v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 1:17-cv-00427

Background

New Hampshire sued Purdue Pharma alleging deceptive marketing of opioids caused statewide harms (public-health costs, overdoses, law‑enforcement and responder burdens) and seeking injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, and damages for the State’s own injuries on behalf of the State, municipalities, and consumers.
Complaint was filed in Merrimack County Superior Court; Purdue removed to federal court asserting CAFA jurisdiction; State moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The jurisdictional dispute turned on whether the State’s suit is a “class action” under CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B)) because the State did not invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The State relied on the parens patriae authority in N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358‑A:4 to bring Consumer Protection Act claims in the name of the State; it did not bring a class action under the CPA’s class‑action provision (§ 358‑A:10‑a).
Court construed the complaint in favor of removability for jurisdictional purposes but considered whether a parens patriae suit is “similar” to a Rule 23 class action for CAFA purposes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a state parens patriae action is a "class action" under CAFA	State: This is a parens patriae suit protecting sovereign interests; not a class action and not removable under CAFA	Purdue: The complaint seeks individualized restitution for citizens and thus is similar to a Rule 23 class action and removable under CAFA	Held: Parens patriae suits are ordinarily not CAFA class actions; remand granted
Whether seeking relief that benefits individuals converts parens patriae into a class action	State: Seeking equitable relief for citizens (injunction, restitution, abatement) does not transform sovereign suit into a class action	Purdue: Requesting restitution/relief on behalf of individuals shows the suit functions like a class action	Held: Seeking individualized equitable relief does not make a parens patriae action a Rule 23‑type class action
Whether the State invoked the CPA’s class action statute	State: Relied on § 358‑A:4 (AG parens patriae authority), not § 358‑A:10‑a (private class actions)	Purdue: Cites CPA class‑action provision to argue similarity to Rule 23	Held: The State invoked the parens patriae provision; it is the master of its complaint and did not plead a CPA class action
Whether CAFA evidences congressional intent to strip states of parens patriae jurisdiction	State: CAFA does not clearly show intent to deprive states of sovereign parens patriae suits	Purdue: CAFA should cover representative actions that functionally resemble class actions	Held: CAFA does not clearly signal withdrawal of states’ sovereign parens patriae power; remand appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (defendant must plausibly allege CAFA jurisdictional facts)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (Rule 23(a) threshold requirements and class certification framework)
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) (scope of state parens patriae authority)
General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980) (agency representative actions seeking individual relief need not comply with Rule 23)
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2013) (parens patriae suits generally not removable under CAFA)
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae ≠ Rule 23 class action)
LG Display Co. v. Madigan, 665 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2011) (same)
Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011) (same)
Pazul v. Tough Mudder, 819 F.3d 548 (1st Cir. 2016) (amount‑in‑controversy reasonable‑probability standard discussion)