Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20083

Washington and California AGs filed parens patriae actions in state courts alleging a TFT-LCD price-fixing conspiracy and injury to state agencies and residents.
Alleged conspiracy spanned 1998–2006, causing inflated prices for products containing TFT-LCD panels.
Washington action sought declaratory relief, civil penalties, and restitution on behalf of the state and its citizens; California action sought similar relief for California residents and agencies.
Defendants removed to federal court under CAFA, contending the parens patriae claims were disguised class actions and within CAFA jurisdiction.
District court remanded, holding parens patriae suits are not “class actions” under CAFA; removals were improper.
This appeal asks whether parens patriae actions qualify as CAFA class actions and reviews de novo the CAFA interpretation and remand order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parens patriae suits are CAFA class actions	States argue not class actions under CAFA	Defendants argue actions resemble class actions and are removable	Not class actions; CAFA does not apply; remand affirmed

Children's Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Belshe, 188 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999) (CAFA plain-language approach; statutory text governs)
Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2001) (plain-meaning rule; consult statute structure)
Gen. Tel. Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980) (representative actions not always class actions)
Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (CAFA burden and removal principles)
In re Katrina Canal Litig. Breaches, 524 F.3d 700 (5th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes state class actions under CAFA)
TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (statutory interpretation; avoid superfluous terms)
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharm., Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae not CAFA class actions under CAFA)