Commerce Bank v. Beverly Williamson, et al.

Congress has the power to prescribe rules for the exercise of diversity jurisdiction within Article III’s “judicial Power,” and did just that when it enacted The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. Concerned with abuses in state court class action litigation, and to “restore the intent of the framers of the . . . Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction,” Congress broadened diversity jurisdiction and created a new and separate removal statute that expands the power to remove qualifying class actions to federal court by granting the removal right to “any defendant.” In Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17- 1471, this Court granted certiorari to address whether an additional defendant to a state court class action counterclaim is “any defendant” entitled to remove under CAFA. This Petition presents separate but related questions. Commerce began the case as the plaintiff in a state court collection action, but when Respondents filed a class action counterclaim meeting CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements, Commerce dismissed its action with prejudice and removed to federal court. At the time of removal, Commerce’s role was solely that of defendant. The district court, like almost all lower federal courts to address the issue, interpreted removal under CAFA to be limited to only “original defendants” and remanded the case back to state court. The questions presented are: Whether a counterclaim defendant in a state court class action is “any defendant” entitled to remove a class action which satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act?