Dеfendants Service Corporation International, SCI Funeral and Cemetery Purchasing Cooperative, Inc., and SCI Western Markеt Support Center, L.P. (collectively SCI) appeal the district court’s grant of Plaintiffs’ motion to remand their class action lawsuit to state court. We grant Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss, and dismiss this appeal as moot. 1
I
In this case, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against SCI, a large, multi-state funeral home operating company, based on its allegedly unlawful employment practices аnd policies. Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid wages based on SCI’s purported failure to compensate its employees for (1) time spent engaging in community work outside of regular employment hours; (2) time spent handling phone calls and other wоrk-related issues after normal business hours; (3) time spent working through meal breaks; and (4) overtime hours worked. Aplt. Br., Ex. 10, at 2-3.
Shortly after Plaintiffs filed their complaint, SCI removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fаirness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand. In April 2011, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, concluding that SCI had not established that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million jurisdictional threshold required under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c), SCI filed a timely petition in this court rеquesting leave to appeal the district court’s remand order. On May 27, before we granted the petition, Plaintiffs filed in Colorаdo state court a notice voluntarily dismissing their claims against SCI without prejudice. The state court dismissed the case that same day. On May 31, we granted SCI’s petition for leave to appeal. Two weeks later, on June 10, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss SCI’s appeal, claiming that the appeal is now moot.
II
Plaintiffs rely on their voluntary dismissal filed pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure to argue that SCI’s appeal is moot and subject to dismissal. Rule 41(a) states that plaintiffs may dismiss an action “withоut order of [the] court upon payment of costs ... [by] filing a notice of dismissal at any time before filing or service by the adversе party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment.” C.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A). Plaintiffs argue that because SCI has not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, their notice of dismissal automatically terminated this case.
See Alpha Spacecom, Inc. v. Hu,
“Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to live controversies that exist at
all
stages of litigation, including appellate review.”
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
We have not previously addressed whether the federal appeal of a remand order becomes moot following the plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of the case in state court. This is likely because remand orders are appealable only when a federal statute specifically permits the filing of an appeal, and those instances are rare. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d);
see also Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,
Our decision is consistent with the federal remand stаtute. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) states that once a “copy of the order of remand [is] mailed ... to the clerk of the State court[,] ... the State court may thereupon proceed with such case.” Under the clear language of the statute, the parties may сontinue the litigation in state court immediately upon the state court’s receiving notice of the remand order. Further, neither § 1447(c) nor § 1453(c), which authorizes the appeal of remand orders in class action lawsuits, states that this rule does not apрly, or that the jurisdiction of the state court is somehow stayed pending the outcome of a later-authorized appеal of the remand order. Accordingly, pursuant to the Article III mootness doctrine and in accordance with applicable federal statutes, we conclude that SCI’s appeal became moot when Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims in Colorado state court.
We note that there exists an exception to the mootness doctrine as it pertains to clаss action lawsuits when class certification has not yet been granted. In rare circumstances, an uncertified class cаn later be certified even though the named plaintiffs’ claims have become moot.
Clark,
Ill
Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and SCI’s appeal is DISMISSED.
Notes
. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore, submitted without oral argument.