Class Action Fairness Act Case Properly Removed.

In 2011, 137 named plaintiffs brought an action against 25 financial institutions in state court for deceptive mortgage lending, asserting various causes of action, including violation of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 [CAFA; Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat.4 (2005)]. Relying on the Class Action Fairness Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(11)(B)(i), one of the defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing it was removable as a “mass action.” In 2012, the district court remanded the case to state court after concluding it lacked jurisdiction under CAFA. The Ninth Circuit reversed, stating: “The district court misinterpreted CAFA. In construing the provisions of a statute, ‘our inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well if the text is unambiguous.’ [Citations.] CAFA’s text is unambiguous in this respect. ‘[B]y its plain language, CAFA’s ‘mass action’ provisions apply only to civil actions in which ‘monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly.’ [Citations.] Because Plaintiffs proposed a joint trial in state court, Defendants properly removed this case.’” (Visendi v. Bank of America (Ninth Cir.; October 23, 2013) 733 F.3d 863.)