Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00704/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00704-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur Arguedas
Respondent
Barbara Arguedas
Respondent
Helen Bransford
Respondent
Garrett Seawright
Petitioner
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

GARRETT SEAWRIGHT, individually 

and as DEFENDANT CLASS

REPRESENTATIVE for a Defendant 

Class of State Farm Agents Licensed to 

Sell Automobile Liability Insurance in 

New Mexico; STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

 Petitioners,

v.

ARTHUR ARGUEDAS; BARBARA 

ARGUEDAS; HELEN BRANSFORD,

 Respondents.

No. 15-704

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Joint Petition for Permission to 

Appeal Remand Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c), filed by Defendant Garrett Seawright 

and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm); Plaintiffs’ Motion 

to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or Alternatively Response to Petition for Appeal; and 

Mr. Seawright and State Farm’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in support of Joint 

Petition for Permission to Appeal, which included a proposed reply brief. The motion to 

file a reply brief is granted. The reply brief shall be filed as of the date it was received.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-704 Document: 01019463602 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 1 
2

The motion to dismiss is denied. This court has the authority to decide a timely 

permissive appeal seeking review of a district court’s remand order in a class action case.

See Fed. R. App. P. 5; 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).

“The decision whether to grant leave to appeal [under the Class Action Fairness 

Act (CAFA)] remains a matter ‘committed to the informed discretion of the reviewing 

court. . . .’” BP America v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 613 F.3d 1029, 1035 (10th Cir. 

2010) (quoting College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. 

Co., 585 F.3d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 2009)). We decline to grant permission to appeal here 

because although “no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA,” Dart 

Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014), parties must 

follow the removal procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. State Farm was 

not granted leave to intervene in either state court or district court and is thus not a party 

to the underlying action at this time. CAFA expressly requires that a class action be 

removed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446, which contemplates that an action that is 

not initially removable can later become removable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(b)(3). Accordingly, the petition for permission to appeal is denied.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-704 Document: 01019463602 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 2