United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
CITIBANK, N.A. Plaintiff,
GEORGE W. JACKSON, Defendant. GEORGE W. JACKSON, Third-Party Plaintiff,
HOME DEPOT, USA, INC. and CAROLINA WATER SYSTEMS, INC. Third-Party Defendants.
C. MULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on Third-Party
Defendant's Motion for Stay of Remand Order Pending
Appeal (Doc. No. 45). For the reasons set forth below, this
Motion is hereby GRANTED.
was sued by Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. to collect an allegedly
outstanding debt for a water filtration system purchased by
Jackson from Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home
Depot”) and Carolina Water Systems, Inc.
(“CWS”). Jackson answered and filed a third-party
class action complaint, alleging that Home Depot and CWS had
a scheme of misleading customers about the alleged
dangerousness of their water and subsequently selling them
unnecessary water filtration systems.
N.A. voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Jackson on
September 23, 2016, and Home Depot removed the remaining
class action lawsuit to federal court on October 12, 2016. On
October 28, 2016, Home Depot filed a Motion to Realign the
Parties (Doc. No. 14). On November 8, 2016, Jackson filed a
Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. No. 23). This Court
granted the Motion to Remand, finding lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and denied the Motion to Realign the Parties on
March 21, 2017. Home Depot timely filed a petition for
permission to appeal this Court's Remand Order under 28
U.S.C. § 1453 and subsequently filed this Motion for
Stay of Remand Order Pending Appeal.
first issue for the Court is whether it has the authority to
stay its remand order when it has previously determined that
it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
Ordinarily, when a district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over a case, it must be remanded, and such
remand is not appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d)
(2012); Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516
U.S. 124, 127-28 (“As long as a district court's
remand is based on . . . lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
. . . a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an
appeal of the remand order under § 1447(d).”).
28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) carves out a limited exception to
§ 1447(d), allowing courts of appeals to accept an
appeal from a district court order granting or denying a
motion to remand a class action if application is made to the
court of appeals within ten days of the remand order. Other
courts addressing this issue have exercised limited
jurisdiction over motions to stay remand orders on the basis
of the § 1453(c) exception. See, e.g.,
Manier v. Medtech Products, Inc., 29 F.Supp.3d.
1284, 1287 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (“The Court finds that it
is appropriate for the Court to address a motion to stay
pending appeal of a remand order as Congress has specifically
allowed these remand orders to be appealable.”);
W.Va. ex rel. Morrisey v. Pfizer, Inc., No.
3:13-2546, 2013 WL 12182097 at *1 (S.D. W.Va. June 16, 2013)
(assuming, without deciding, the existence of jurisdiction);
Dalton v. Walgreen Co., No. 4:13cv603, 2013 WL
2367837 at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 29, 2013) (“To hold that a
district court lacks the limited jurisdiction to stay its
remand order in a CAFA case would render the statutory right
to appeal a CAFA remand order hollow.”); Lafalier
v. Cinnabar Serv. Co., 2010 WL 1816377 at *1 (N.D. Okla.
Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Court finds that it has the
limited authority to reopen this case and stay its remand
order, because appellate review of the Court's remand
order is not barred by § 1447(d).”).
Home Depot filed its petition for review under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) with the
Fourth Circuit on March 31, 2017, within the statutory time
frame. Given that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)
requires litigants to first seek a motion to stay in district
court for any appealable order and the Remand Order in this
case is appealable, this Court finds that it has the limited
jurisdiction to rule on Home Depot's Motion for Stay.
Standard of Review
judicial stay pending appellate review is “an exercise
of judicial discretion, and the propriety of its issue is
dependent upon the circumstances of the particular
case.” Niken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433
(2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“The party requesting a stay bears the burden of
showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that
discretion.” Id. at 434.
are four factors a court must consider in deciding whether or
not to grant a stay: “(1) whether the stay applicant
has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured
absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). The
first two factors are the “most critical.”
Niken, 556 U.S. at 434.