F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T AT E OF NE VA DA , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. B AN K O F AME R I C A C OR P OR AT I ON ; B AN K O F AME R I C A N AT I ON AL AS S OC I AT I ON ; B AC HO ME L OA NS SERV I CI N G , LP; RECO N STRU CT C OMP AN Y, N. A. ; C OU NT R YWI DE F I NA NC I AL C OR P OR AT I ON ; C O U N T R Y W I D E H O M E L O A N S , I N C .; F U L L S P E C T R U M L E N D I N G , I N C ., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 15005 D . C . N o . 3 : 1 1 -cv -0 0 1 3 5 -R C JWGC OP I NI ON

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC l i ve J one s , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry8, 2012

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia F i l ed B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , W A R D L A W , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O p i n i o n b yJ u d g e WA R D L A W: 

# FI LED MA R 02 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T he S t a t e of

N e va da , thr ough i t s A tt orne yG e ne r a l , C a the r i ne C ort e z M a s t o, fi l ed th i s par e ns patr i ae l aw sui tagai nstB ank o f A m er i caC orpo ra t i on and sever al r e la te d e n titie s ( c o lle c tiv e ly , “B a n ko f A m e r ic a ” ) in C la rkC o u n tyD is tr ic t C o u rt. N e v a d aa l l e g e s th a tBa n ko f A me r i c ami s l e d N e v a d ac o n s u me r s ab o u tth e t e rms a n d o p e r a tio n o f

its h o m e m o rtg a g e m o d if ic a tio n a n d f

o r e c lo s u r e p r o c e s s e s , in v io la tio n o f

th e N e v a d aD e c e p tiv e T r a d e P r a c tic e s A c t, N e v . R e v . S ta t. §§ 598. 0903- . 0999. N e va daa l s o a l l e ge s tha tB a nk of A m e r i c avi ol a t e d a n e xi s t i ng c ons e ntj udgm e nt( “ C ons e ntJ udgm e nt ” ) i n apr i orc a s e be tw e e n N e va daa nd s e v e r a l o f

B a n ko f A m e r ic a ’s s u b s id ia r ie s , e n te r e d in C la rkC o u n tyD is tr ic t C o u rt. B a nk of A m e r i c ar e m ove d thi s a c t i on t o f e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourt , a s s e rt i ng fe dera l subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on as ei ther a“ cl as s a ct i on ” or “ m as s a ct i on ” und er the C l a s s A c t i on F a i rne s s A c t( “ C A F A ” ) , 28 U . S . C . § 1332( d) , a nd a s a r i s i ng unde rf e de r a l l a w , 28 U . S . C . § 1331. D e ny i ng N e va da ’ s m ot i on t o r e m a nd, the f e d e r a l d i s tr i c tc o u rtc o n c l u d e d th a ti th a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a c t i o n a s aCA FA

“ c l a s s a c t i on, ” butnota s a“ m a s s a c t i on, ” a nd tha ti ta l s o ha s f e de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on be c aus e r e s ol vi ng the s t a t e c l a i m s w i l l r e qui r e a n i nt e rpr e t a t i on of f e d e r a l l a w. W e gr a nt e d N e va da ’ s r e que s tf orl e a ve t o appe a l the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of i t s m ot i on t o rem and p ursuantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 45 3(c) (1). W e c on cl ud e that3

because par e ns patr i ae a c t i ons a r e notr e m ovabl e unde rC A F A , a nd the a c t i on do es no totherw i se sa t i sf y C A F A ’ s “ m as s a ct i on ” r equi re m ent s, the di stri ctcourt la c k s ju r is d ic tio n u n d e rC A F A . W e a ls o e x e r c is e o u rin te r lo c u to ryap p e lla te j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1453( c ) t o r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on thati thas f

eder al qu es t i on j uri sdi ct i on because the com pl ai ntre fe re nces the fe dera l H o m e A f

f o r d ab le M o rtg a g e P r o g r a m a n d th e F a irD e b t C o lle c tio n P r a c tic e s A c t. W e co n cl u d e th atth e d i stri ctco u rtl ack s fed eral q u est i o n j u ri sd i ct i o n . B ecau se there i s no b as i s f

or fe dera l subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on , thi s c as e m ustbe re m anded to N e v a d as ta te c o u rt. I. T he N e va daD e c e pt i ve T r a de P r a c t i c e s A c t( “ D T P A ” ) author i z e s the N e va da A tt o rn ey G en eral t o “ b ri n g an act i o n i n th e n am e o f th e S t at e o f N ev ad a” ag ai n st a ny pe r s on w hom the A tt orne y G e ne r a l “ ha s r e a s on t o be l i e ve . . . ha s e nga ge d or i s e nga gi ng i n ade c e pt i ve tr a de pr a c t i c e . ” N e v. R e v. S t a t . § 598. 0963( 3) . T he S ta te o f N e v a d af

ile d its a m e n d e d c o m p la in t ( “C o m p la in t” ) in th e C la rkC o u n ty D i s tr i c tC ourton J a nua ry 19, 2011. T he C om pl ai ntal l eges thatB ank o f A m er i ca vi ol a t e d the D T P A by m i s l e a di ng N e va dac ons um e r s w ho s oughtm odi f i c a t i ons of re si dent i al m ort gages. Ital so al l eges thatB ank o f A m er i cavi ol at ed the t erm s of a F eb ru ary 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , C o n se n t Ju d g m en t b etw ee n N ev ad a a n d se v er al o f th e b an k ’sT h e H o m e A f f o r d ab le M o rtg a g e P r o g r a m ( “H A M P ” ) , 1 2 U .S .C . § 5 2 1 9 a , is 1 af e d e r a l p r o g r a m w h e r e b y th e U n ite d S ta te s g o v e rn m e n t p r iv a te lyc o n tr a c ts w ith bank s t o p rovi de i ncent i ves t o ent eri nt o res i dent i al m ort gage m od i fi ca t i on s. “ In M a r c h 2009, the U ni t e d S t a t e s D e pa rtm e ntof T r e a s urya nnounc e d the de t a i l s of th e H o me A f

f o r d ab l e M o d i f

i c a t i o n Pr o g r a m a s p a rto f th e M a k i n g H o me A ff ordabl e P rogram . U nd erH A M P , i nd i vi du al l oan servi ce rs vo l un t ar i l y e nt er i n t o co n tract s w i th F an n i e M ae, act i n g as th e fi n an ci al ag en to f th e U n i t ed S t at es, t o p er form l oan m od i fi ca t i on se rvi ce s i n exchang e f or ce rt ai n fi nanci al i ncent i ves. ” Ne we l l v . We l l s Fa r g o Ba n k , N. A. , 20 12 W L 27 78 3, at*1 (N . D . C al . Jan. 5, 20 12 ).

4 s ubs i di a r i e s . T he C l a rk C ounty D i s tr i c tC ourte nt e r e d the C ons e ntJ udgm e nta nd r e t a i ns e nf

or c e m e ntj ur i s di c t i on. T hi s a ct i on i s bas ed on com pl ai nt s N evada has r evi ew ed and i nv es t i gat ed f r o m m o r e th a n 1 5 0 c o n s u m e r s , h o u s in g c o u n s e lo r s a n d o th e rin d u s trys o u r c e s . T he C om pl a i nta l l e ge s tha tB a nk of A m e r i c aha s e nga ge d i n apa tt e rn of m i s c onduc ti n w hi c h i tha s a nd c ont i nue s t o: a . M is le a d c o n s u m e r s w ith f a ls e p r o m is e s th a t it w ill a c t o n th e ir m odi f i c a t i ons w i thi n as e tpe r i od of t i m e , butke e ps the m w a i t i ng f or mo n th s , a n d s o me t i me s mo r e th a n ay e a r , b e y o n d th e p r o mi s e d t e rm; b. M i sl ea d con sum er s w i th ass urances thatthey w i l l no tbe fore cl osed u p o n w h ile th e B a n kc o n s id e r e d th e irr e q u e s ts f o rm o d if ic a tio n s . H ow e ve rB a nk of

A m e r i c aha s s ol d the hom e s of s om e N e va da c o n s u m e r s a n d s e n t f

o r e c lo s u r e n o tic e s to m a n ym o r e w h ile th e ir r e que s t s f

orm odi f i c a t i ons w e r e s t i l l pe ndi ng; c . M is r e p r e s e n t to c o n s u m e r s th a t th e ym u s t b e d e lin q u e n t o n th e ir l oa ns i n or de rt o qua l i f

y f ora s s i s t a nc e , e ve n though ne i the rB a nk of A m er i ca ’ s propri et ary program s nor the fe dera l H A M P prog ra m 1 req u i res th ath o m eo w n ers h av e m i ssed p aym en t s;5

d. M i sl ea d con sum er s w i th fal se prom i se s thatthei r i ni t i al , tri al m odi f i c a t i ons w oul d be m a de pe rm a ne nti f a nd w he n the ym a de the re qu i re d three paym ent s on tho se pl ans, bu tthen fai l ed t o con vert th o se m o d i fi cat i o n s; e. T el l consum er s thei r m od i fi ca t i on s w er e deni ed for r ea sons that w e r e untrue , s uc h a s tha t : ( i ) the ow ne rof the l oa n r e f

us e d t o a l l ow the m odi f i c a t i on w he n B a nk of

A m e r i c aha d f

ul l author i tyt o m odi f

ythe l oan w i tho utthe i nv es t or’ s app roval ; (i i ) the B ank h ad tri ed un succ es sf

ul l y t o rea ch the consum er , even tho ug h the consum er re peat edl y c al l ed the B ank; (i i i ) the l oan w as previ ou sl y m od i fi ed w hen i tw as no t ; (i v) the bo rr ow erfa i l ed t o m ake tri alpaym ent s, w hen the y m a de a l l pa y m e nt s ; a nd ( v) the borr ow e rw a s c urr e nton hi s or he rl oa n, w he n de l i nque nc y i s notac ondi t i on of am odi f i c a t i on; f. F al se l y not i fyconsum er s or c re di tre po rt i ng agenci es that c o n s u m e r s a r e in d e f

au lt w h e n th e ya r e n o t; g . M i sl ead co n su m ers w i th o ffers o f m o d i fi cat i o n o n o n e seto f t erm s, a nd the n pr ovi de a gr e e m e nt s w i th m a t e r i a l l ydi f f e r e ntt e rm s , or i nf orm c ons um e r s tha tthe i rm odi f i c a t i ons ha d be e n appr ove d, but then t el l them thatthei r r equest s w er e deni ed, oft en m on ths before . T he C om pl a i nta l s o a l l e ge s tha tB a nk of A m e r i c ai s i n c ont e m ptof the C o n s e n t J u d g m e n t b e c au s e o f its f a ilu r e to o f

f e rlo a n m o d if

ic a tio n s to e lig ib le c ons um e r s a nd i t s pr a c t i c e of c onduc t i ng f

or e c l os ur e s w hi l e c ons um e r s a r e be i ng c ons i de r e d f

orm odi f i c a t i ons . T he C om pl a i nts e e ks de c l a r a t orya nd i nj unc t i ve re l i ef , ci vi l penal t i es , re st i tut i on for def raud ed N evada consum er s, att orney’ s f ee s a nd the c os t s of

i nve s t i ga t i on.6

B a nk of A m e r i c ar e m ove d the c a s e t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC ourtf orthe D i stri ctof N evada on F ebruary23 , 20 11 , as se rt i ng three theori es of fe dera l j u r i s d i c t i o n : ( 1 ) j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e rCA FA , a s b o th a“ c l a s s a c t i o n , ” 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 33 2(d)(2)-( 10 ), and a “ m as s a ct i on , ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2(d)(11); (2) f eder al que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on, 28 U . S . C . §§ 1331, 1441( b) ; a nd ( 3) ba nkrupt c yj ur i s di c t i on, 28 U . S . C . §§ 1334( b) , 1452. O n M a r c h 22, 2011, N e va dam ove d t o r e m a nd the c a s e to s ta te c o u rt. T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d N e va da ’ s r e m a nd m ot i on on J ul y5, 2011, c o n c lu d in g th a t th e c a s e w a s a“c la s s a c tio n ” u n d e rC A F A , 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 ( d ) . A s a n a l t e rna t i ve ba s i s f orf e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on, the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tthe case p resen t ed a fed eral q u est i o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 1 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so d e t e rmi n e d th a tth e c a s e d i d n o ts a t i s f yCA FA ’ s “ ma s s a c t i o n ” p r o n g , 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 33 2(d)(11). O n Jul y 15, 20 11 , N evada t i m el y r equest ed perm i ss i on t o app ea l the de ni a l of

the r e m a nd m ot i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1453( c ) . W e he l d the pet i t i on for perm i ss i on t o app ea l i n abeyance pendi ng di sposi t i on of W ashi ng ton v. Ch i m eiIn n o lux C o rp . , 659 F . 3d 843 ( 9th C i r . 2011) , w hi c h pr e s e nt e d the que s t i on o f w h e th e ras ta te A tto rn e y G e n e r a l par e ns patr i ae ac t i on i s a“ cl as s a ct i on ” a s de f i ne d by C A F A , a nd the n a c c e pt e d the appe a l on J a nua ry3, 2012. II.7

“ D e t e rm i na t i ons r e ga r di ng s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on a r e r e vi e w e d de no vo . ” Chapm an v . D e ut s c he B ank

N at ’ l T r us t C o. , 65 1 F . 3d 10 39 , 10 43 (9th C i r. 2011) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ W e r e vi e w the ‘ c ons truc t i on, i nt e rpr e t a t i on, or appl i cabi l i ty’ of C A F A de no vo . ” Chi m ei , 659 F . 3d a t846- 47 ( quot i ng B ush v. Cheap t i cket

s, Inc. , 425 F . 3d 683, 686 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ) . “ W e r e vi e w de novo a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o rem and t o st at e c ou rtfor l ac k o f f eder al subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on . ” Chapm an , 6 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 3 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . R e m o v a l s ta tu te s a r e to b e “s tr ic tlyc o n s tru e d ” a g a in s t r e m o v a l ju r is d ic tio n . Sy nge nta Cr op P r ot. , I

nc . v . H e ns on , 53 7 U . S . 28 , 32 (200 2) (c i t at i on om i tt ed).

III. W e fi rstco n si d er w h eth er th e d i stri ctco u rtco rrect l y co n cl u d ed th atth i s case w a s r e m ovabl e unde rC A F A . C A F A pr ovi de s f orthe r e m ova l of

c l a s s a c t i ons a nd m a s s a c tio n s in v o lv in g p a rtie s w ith m in im a l d iv e r s ity . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) . U nde rC A F A , a“ c l a s s a c t i on” i s de f i ne d a s “ a nyc i vi l a c t i on f i l e d unde rR ul e 23 of the F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re or si m i l arS t at e s t atut e or rul e of j ud i ci al pr oc e dur e author i z i ng a n a c t i on t o be br oughtby 1 orm or e r e pr e s e nt a t i ve pe r s ons a s ac l a s s a c t i on. ” 28 U . S . C . § 1332( d) ( 1) ( B ) . A “ m a s s a c t i on” i s de f i ne d a s “ a ny ci vi l ac t i on . . . i n w hi ch m on et ary r el i ef cl ai m s of 100 or m ore pers on s are8

pr opos e d t o be tr i e d j oi nt l y on the gr ound tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i m s i nvol ve com m on qu es t i on s of l aw or fa ct . ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2(d)(11)(B )( i ). A. Si n c e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s s u e d i t s o r d e rh o l d i n g th a tth i s a c t i o n i s aCA FA

“ c l a s s a c t i on, ” w e ha ve he l d t o the c ontr a ry . I n W as hi ngton v . Chi m e iI

nnolux C o rp . , w e hel d thatatt orney genera l enforc em entac t i on s are no tre m ov abl e a s

“ c l a s s a c t i ons ” unde rC A F A . 659 F . 3d a t847. I n Chi m ei , the a tt orne y s ge ne r a l of W a s h in g to n a n d C a lif

o rn iab r o u g h t par e ns patr i ae su i t s u n d er th ei r st at es’ an t i tru st l a w s , a l l e gi ng tha tagr oup of m a nuf a c tur e r s a nd di s tr i but or s e nga ge d i n a c o n s p ir a c y to f

ix th e p r ic e s o f

c e rta in liq u id c ry s ta l d is p la yp a n e ls . I d. a t846. T he de f e nda nt s r e m ove d the c a s e s t o f e de r a l c ourt , a r gui ng tha t“ c ons um e r s w e r e the real p art i es i n i n t erestfo r th e m o n et ary rel i ef cl ai m s, an d th atth erefo re th e S t at es’ par e ns patr i ae cl ai m s w er e di sgui se d cl as s a ct i on s r em ov abl e und erC A F A . ” I d. W e r e je c te d th is a r g u m e n t, n o tin g th a t “ [ p] ar e ns patr i ae s ui t s l a c k the de f i ni ng a ttr i but e s of

true c l a s s a c t i ons . A s s uc h, the yonl y‘ r e s e m bl e ’ c l a s s a c t i ons i n the se nse thatthey are re pres ent at i ve sui t s. ” I d. a t 8 5 0 . See a l

so L G D is

playC o. , L td. v . M adi gan , 66 5 F . 3d 76 8, 77 2 (7th C i r. 20 11 ) ( par e ns patr i ae su i tn o ta “ cl ass act i o n ” b ecau se th e “ case w as b ro u g h tb y th e A tt o rn ey G en eral , n o tb y a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f

ac la s s ” ) ; W

e s t V ir g in ia ex r e l. Mc G r a w v . C V S P h a rm a c

y, I n c .,9

6 4 6 F . 3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 4 -7 6 (4 th C i r. 2 0 1 1 ) (W estV i rg i n i a A tt o rn ey G en eral ’ s par e ns patr i ae a c t i o n t o e n f

o r c e c o n s u me rp r o t e c t i o n s t a tu t e n o tr e mo v ab l e u n d e rCA FA because s t at e s t atut e l ac ked the procedural re qu i re m ent s of Rul e 23). O u rd e c is io n in Chi m ei , w hi c h B a nk of A m e r i c ac onc e de s c ontr ol s our de c i s i on a s t o w he the rthi s a c t i on i s aC A F A c l a s s a c t i on, m a ke s c l e a rtha ti tc a nnot b e s o c h a r a c te r iz e d . B. B a n ko f A m e r ic an e x t a r g u e s th a t N e v a d a ’s a c tio n is n e v e rth e le s s r e m o v ab le as a “ m as s a ct i on ” und er28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2(d)(11). A m as s a ct i on i s def i ned as

“ any c i vi l ac t i on . . . i n w hi ch m on et ary r el i ef cl ai m s of 100 or m ore pers on s are pr opos e d t o be tr i e d j oi nt l y on the gr ound tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i m s i nvol ve com m on qu es t i on s of l aw or fa ct , exce ptthatj uri sdi ct i on shal l exi ston l y over tho se pl ai nt i ff

s w ho se cl ai m s i n a m as s a ct i on sa t i sf y the [$75 , 00 0] j uri sdi ct i on al am ou ntre qu i re m ent ” s etforth i n § 13 32 (a ). 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2(d)(11)(B )( i ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtrul e d tha tthi s a c t i on doe s notqua l i f ya s a“ m a s s a c t i on” un der the “ eventor occurre nce” excl usi on i n C A F A , w hi ch express l y provi des that the t e rm “ m a s s a c t i on” e xc l ude s a nyc i vi l a c t i on i n w hi c h “ a l l of the c l a i m s i n the a c t i on a r i s e f

r om a n e ve ntoroc c urr e nc e i n the S t a t e i n w hi c h the a c t i on w a s f i l e d, a n d th a ta l l e g e d l y r e s u l t e d i n i n j u r i e s i n th a tSt a t e . . . . ” 2 8 U . S. C.N evada di d n otar gu e bel ow for app l i ca t i on of the “ eventor occurre nce” 2 e x c lu s io n , a n d d o e s n o t a tte m p t to ju s tif yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n o n ap p e a l. 10 § 1332( d) ( 11) ( B ) ( i i ) ( I ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtr e a s one d tha ti tl a c ke d m a s s a c t i on ju r is d ic tio n b e c au s e “th e c la im s a ll a lle g e d lya r is e f r o m a c tiv ityin N e v a d aa n d a ll i nj uri es al l egedl y r es ul t ed i n N evada. ” T hi s w a s am i s appl i c a t i on of the “ e ve ntor o c c u rr e n c e ” e x c lu s io n . T h e “ ev en to r o ccu rren ce” ex cl u si o n ap p l i es o n l y w h ere al l cl ai m s ari se fr om a s in g le e ve ntoroc c urr e nc e . “ [ C ] ourt s ha ve c ons i s t e nt l yc ons true d the

‘ e ve ntoroc c urr e nc e ’ l a ngua ge t o appl yonl yi n c a s e s i nvol vi ng as i ngl e e ve ntor o c c u rr e n c e , s u c h a s a n e n v ir o n m e n ta l a c c id e n t, th a t g iv e s r is e to th e c la im s o f a ll pl ai nt i ff s. ” L af al i erv. C i nn ab ar Serv . C o. , Inc. , 2 0 1 0 WL 1 4 8 6 9 0 0 , a t* 4 ( N. D. O k la . A p r . 1 3 , 2 0 1 0 ) . M o r e o v e r , th e le g is la tiv e h is to ryo f C A F A s u p p o rts th is i nt e rpr e t a t i on, m a ki ng c l e a rtha tthe e xc e pt i on w a s i nt e nde d t o appl y“ onl yt o a trul y l oc a l s i ngl e e ve ntw i th no s ubs t a nt i a l i nt e r s t a t e e f f e c t s ” i n or de rt o “ a l l ow ca se s i nv ol vi ng envi ronm ent al t ort s s uch as achem i ca l spi l l t o rem ai n i n st at e c ou rt i f both the e ve nta nd the i nj ur i e s w e r e trul yl oc a l . ” S . R e p. N o. 109- 14, a t41 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , r e

pr i nte d i n 20 05 U . S . C . C . A . N . 3, 44 . T he C om pl ai nti n thi s c as e a l l eges w i despre ad fr aud i n tho usands of bo rr ow eri nt er ac t i on s, and thu s thi s a ct i on do es notc om e w i thi n the “ e ve ntoroc c urr e nc e ” e xc l us i on. T he r e f or e , w e hol d tha tthe 211

“ e ve ntoroc c urr e nc e ” e xc l us i on, 28 U . S . C . § 1332( d) ( 11) ( B ) ( i i ) ( I I I ) , doe s not ap p lyto th is a c tio n . W e h av e n o tyeth ad o ccasi o n t o d eci d e w h eth er a st at e’ s par e ns patr i ae a c tio n is r e m o v ab le a s am a s s a c tio n . T h e tw o c ir c u its th a t h a v e a d d r e s s e d th is q u e s tio n , th e S e v e n th a n d F if th , h a v e r e a c h e d c o n f

lic tin g r e s u lts . Se e M

adi gan , 665 F . 3d a t772 (

par e ns patr i ae sui tno ta m as s a ct i on because the A tt orney G e n e r a l is th e o n lyp la in tif f ) ; L ouis i ana ex r e l. Caldw e l l v . A l l s tate I ns . C o. , 536 F . 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 9 (5 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (st at e’ s par e ns patr i ae an t i tru stact i o n ag ai n st i nsurance c om pani es qu al i fi es as m as s a ct i on because i nsurance pol i cy ho l ders ar e th e “r e a l p a rtie s in in te r e s t” ) . I n M adi gan , the Il l i no i s A tt orney G ener al fi l ed an act i on i n st at e c ou rt a g a in s t m a n u f

a c tu r e r s o f

liq u id c ry s ta l d is p la yp a n e ls f o rv io la tio n s o f

th e I llin o is A n titru s t A c t. 6 6 5 F .3 d a t 7 6 9 . T h e c o m p la in t s o u g h t in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

, c iv il p en al t i es, an d treb l e st atu t o ry d am ag es fo r th e st at e as a p u rch aser an d , as par e ns patr i ae , f

o rin ju r e d r e s id e n ts . I

d. C onc l udi ng tha tthe s ui tw a s notam a s s a c t i on, the S e ve nth C i r c ui tr e a s one d tha ti tdi d noti nvol ve “ m one t a ryr e l i e f c l a i m s of

100 o r m o re p erso n s . . . p ro p o sed t o b e tri ed j o i n t l y, ” as req u i red b y C A F A , b ecau se

“ on l y the Il l i no i s A tt orney G ener al m akes a c l ai m for dam ages (a m on g o ther thi ng s) , prec i se l y a s autho ri ze d b y the IA A . ” I d. at7 7 2 . T h e S ev en th C i rcu i tal so12

re as on ed thata s ui ti s nota “ m as s a ct i on ” i f “ ‘ al l of the cl ai m s i n the ac t i on ar e a s s e rte d o n b e h a lf

o f th e g e n e r a l p u b lic ( a n d n o t o n b e h a lf o f in d iv id u a l c la im a n ts orm e m be r s of

apurport e d c l a s s ) pur s ua ntt o aS t a t e s t a tut e s pe c i f i c a l l yauthor i z i ng s u c h a c tio n ,’” q u o tin g th e s ta tu to ryla n g u a g e o f § 1 3 3 2 ( d ) ( 1 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) ( I I I ) . I d. T he M adi gan defe nd ant s argued, l i ke B ank o f A m er i cahere , thatthe court s h o u ld ap p lya“c la im b y c la im ” a n a ly s is to c o n c lu d e th a t th e a c tio n w a s “r e a lly ” to re cover dam ages for the hu nd re ds of pers on s w ho pu rc hase d the un l aw ful l y pri ce d L C D pa ne l s a nd tha tthos e pur c ha s e r s w e r e the r e a l pa rt i e s i n i nt e r e s tf orthe none nf or c e m e nt - r e l a t e d c l a i m s i n the s ui t , thus s a t i s f y i ng the “ m a s s a c t i on” r e q u ir e m e n ts . Id . at77 2-73 . T he S eventh C i rc ui tre j ec t ed thi s app roac h, i nst ea d l oo ki ng atthe com pl ai ntas a w ho l e, and con cl ud i ng thatthe S t at e w as the re al p a rtyin in te r e s t. I

d. a t 7 7 4 . I t r e a s o n e d , “W h e th e ras ta te is th e r e a l p a rtyin i nt er es ti n a sui t‘ i s aqu es t i on t o b e det erm i ned from the es se nt i al nature and ef fe ct of the proceedi ng . ’ ” I

d. a t773 ( quot i ng N

u c le a rE n g ’

gC o . v . Sc o tt , 660 F . 2d 241, 2 5 0 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . I n Ca ldw e ll , o n th e o th er h an d , th e F i fth C i rcu i tad o p t ed th i s “ cl ai m -b ycl ai m ” app roac h t o i dent i fythe re al party i n i nt er es ti n a pa re ns pa tri ae a c t i on b r o u g h t b y th e S ta te o f

L o u is ia n a . Ca ldw e ll , 53 6 F . 3d at43 0. L ou i si ana f i l ed an ant i trustsui ti n st at e c ou rtagai nstse vera l i nsurance c om pani es , se eki ng t o enforce13

th e L o u is ia n aM o n o p o lie s A c t a n d to r e c o v e rtr e b le d a m a g e s , a m o n g o th e rr e lie f . I d. a t423. T he F i f

th C i r c ui tdi s s e c t e d the c l a i m s t o “ c onc l ude tha ta s f a ra s the S t at e’ s r equestfor tre bl e dam ages i s c on ce rned, the po l i cy ho l ders ar e the re al part i es i n i nt er es t , ” bec ause the pl ai n l angu age of the M on op ol i es A ctautho ri ze d o n lyin ju r e d in d iv id u a ls to r e c o v e rf o rtr e b le d a m a g e s . I

d. at 4 2 9 . L o u isian a’s a r gum e nttha ti tw a s the r e a l pa rty i n i nt e r e s tw a s be l i e d bythe l a ngua ge i n the co m p l ai n t , w h i ch so u g h treco v ery o f “ d am ag es su ffered b y i ndi v i dual p o l i cyh o lders . ” Id . at42 8 (em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). T he F i fth C i rc ui tal so re l i ed upon the e s s e nt i a l na tur e of a n a nt i trus tpr oc e e di ng, r e a s oni ng tha t“ gi ve n tha tthe purpos e of

a nt i trus ttr e bl e da m a ge s pr ovi s i ons a r e t o e nc our a ge pr i va t e l a w s ui t s by a g g r ie v e d in d iv id u a ls f

o rin ju r ie s to th e irb u s in e s s o rp r o p e rty ,” it h a d n o r e a s o n to b e lie v e th a t in d iv id u a l p o lic y h o ld e r s w e r e n o t th e r e a l p a rtie s in in te r e s t. I d. a t430 ( c i t i ng H aw ai iv . Standard O i l

C o. , 40 5 U . S . 25 1, 26 2 (19 72 )) . A s both s i de s a gr e e , the c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of thi s c a s e a s a“ m a s s a c t i on” thus tu rn s o n w h eth er th e S t at e o f N ev ad a o r th e h u n d red -p l u s co n su m ers o n w h o se be ha l f i ts e e ks r e s t i tut i on a r e the r e a l pa rty ( i e s ) i n i nt e r e s t . T hi s de t e rm i na t i on a f f e c t s both C A F A ’ s num e r os i ty r e qui r e m e nt , 28 U . S . C . § 1332( d) ( 11) ( B ) ( i ) , a nd i t s m i ni m a l di ve r s i ty r e qui r e m e nt , § 1332( d) ( 2) ( A ) , be c aus e de f e nda nt s a r e not14

ci t i zen s o f N ev ad a an d N ev ad a i s n o ta ci t i zen fo r p u rp o ses o f d i v ersi ty an al ysi s, D y ac k v . N . M ar i ana I s lands , 3 1 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . R e l y i ng on ourr e c e ntde c i s i on i n D e par tm e nt of Fai rE m ploy m e nt

and H ou si ngv. L ucent

T ec hn olog i es , Inc. , 64 2 F . 3d 72 8 (9th C i r. 20 11 ), the di stri ct c ourt , though r e c ogni z i ng tha t“ di s tr i c tc ourt s a r e m a i nl yi n a gr e e m e nttha tw he n a s ta te a tto rn e y g e n e r a l b r in g s s u c h ac a s e , th e f a c t th a t ad is c r e te c la s s o f in d iv id u a ls w ill r e c e iv e r e s titu tio n d o e s n o t d e f e a t th e f a c t th a t th e g r a v a m e n o f th e a c tio n is prot ec t i on of the pu bl i c w el fare , ” neverthel es s c on cl ud ed thatthe i nd i vi du al c ons um e r s a r e the r e a l pa rt i e s i n i nt e r e s tf orthe r e s t i tut i on, de c l a r a t i ve a nd i nj un ct i ve cl ai m s f

or re l i ef . I n L uc e nt , w e c ons i de r e d w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourtha d di ve r s i tyj ur i s di c t i on ove ra n a c t i on f

i l e d by the C a l i f

orni aD e pa rtm e ntof

F a i rE m pl oy m e nta nd H ous i ng ( “D F E H ” ) o n b e h a lf

o f as in g le a g g r ie v e d e m p lo y e e . I d. a t735. T hi s que s t i on tu rn e d o n w h e th e rD F E H o rth e e m p lo y e e w a s th e r e a l p a rtyin in te r e s t, b e c au s e if th e S ta te h a d o n lyth e g e n e r a l in te r e s t it h o ld s o n b e h a lf o f a ll its c itiz e n s a n d th e ir w e l f a r e , i tw oul d nots a t i s f

y the “ r e a l pa rtyt o the c ontr ove r s yr e qui r e m e ntf orthe p u rp o s e s o f

d e f e a tin g d iv e r s ity ” ju r is d ic tio n . Id . at73 7. T ho ug h the st atut e a t issu e, th e C alifo rn ia F air E m p lo ym en t an d H o u sin g A ct (“F E H A ”) , C al. G o v ’t C ode § 12900 e t

s e q. , de c l a r e s the S t a t e ’ s i nt e r e s ti n pr ot e c t i ng a l l pe r s ons f r om15

em pl oym entdi sc ri m i nat i on , thatgo vernm ent al i nt er es tw as t oo “ general ” t o render th e S ta te ar e a l p a rtyin th e c o n tr o v e r s y . L uc e nt , 642 F . 3d a t738. M or e ove r , the r e l i e f s oughti nc l ude d r e i ns t a t e m e nta nd pa y m e ntof c om pe ns a t orya nd puni t i ve d a m a g e s to th e a g g r ie v e d in d iv id u a l, w h o w a s a ls o ab le to s e c u r e th e e q u itab le r e lie f s o u g h t b y th e S ta te . L uc e nt , 6 4 2 F .3 d a t 7 3 9 . A n yr e lie f th a t w a s u n iq u e to D F E H w a s “ t a nge nt i a l ” t o the r e l i e f s oughtf orthe e m pl oy e e , a nd thus c oul d not r e n d e rD F E H ar e a l p a rtyin in te r e s t. I d. O u rr a tio n a le f

o rf in d in g th a t th e a g g r ie v e d in d iv id u a l w a s th e r e a l p a rtyin i nt e r e s ti n L uc e nt

co m p el s th e co n cl u si o n th atN ev ad a i s th e real p arty i n i n t erest here . U nl i ke the C al i forni a D F E H , w hi ch sued on behal f of a s in g le aggri eved e m pl oy e e , he r e , the N e va daA tt orne yG e ne r a l s ue d t o pr ot e c tthe hundr e ds of tho usands of ho m eow ners i n the st at e a l l egedl y dec ei ved b y B ank o f A m er i ca , as w e l l a s thos e a f

f e c t e d bythe i m pa c tof

B a nk of A m e r i c a ’ s a l l e ge d f

r auds on N e va da ’ s e c onom y . I n L uc e nt , w e a d d r e s s e d w h e th e rth e r e w a s a“s u b s ta n tia l s ta te in te r e s t” s e p a r a te a n d d is tin c t f r o m th e r e lie f

s o u g h t o n b e h a lf

o f th e in d iv id u a l; there , the i nt er es t s thatw er e uni qu e t o the S t at e w er e m er el y “ t angent i al . ” I d. F urthe rm or e , i n L uc e nt

w e a d o p te d th e ap p r o a c h o f lo o k in g a t th e c a s e a s aw h o le t o d et erm i ne the re al party i n i nt er es t , ra ther than the cl ai m -by- cl ai m approach a dopt e d i n Ca ldw e ll

a n d a d v o c a te d b yB a n ko f A m e r ic a . I

d. a t740 ( quot i ng16

G e e s l i n v . Me rr i m an , 52 7 F . 2d 45 2, 45 5 (6th C i r. 19 75 ), for the prop osi t i on that

“ [ t ] he que s t i on a s t o w he the rornotthe s t a t e i s the r e a l pa rtyi n i nt e r e s tm us tbe de t e rm i ne d by the e s s e nt i a l na tur e a nd e f f e c tof the pr oc e e di ng a s i tappe a r s f r om th e e n tir e r e c o r d ” ) . W e th e r e f

o r e e x a m in e “th e e s s e n tia l n a tu r e a n d e f f e c t o f th e p r o c e e d in g a s it appears fr om the ent i re re cord, ” L uc e nt , 64 2 F . 3d at74 0, and con cl ud e that N e v a d a— n o t th e in d iv id u a l c o n s u m e r s — is th e r e a l p a rtyin in te r e s t in th is c ontr ove r s y . N e va dabr oughtthi s s ui tpur s ua ntt o i t s s t a tut oryauthor i tyunde rthe D T P A be c aus e of

i t s i nt e r e s ti n pr ot e c t i ng the i nt e gr i tyof m ort ga ge l oa n s e rvi c i ng. U nl i ke i n Ca ldw e ll , there i s no d ou btthatthe A tt orney G ener al has s t atut ory author i ty t o pur s ue s uc h c l a i m s . F or e c l os ur e s w ork aw i de s pr e a d a nd de va s t a t i ng i nj ury notonl y t o thos e borr ow e r s w ho a r e de f r aude d, buta l s o on othe rN e va da r e s i de nt s a nd the N e va dae c onom ya s aw hol e . N e va daha s be e n pa rt i c ul a r l yha r dh it b y th e c u rr e n t m o rtg a g e c r is is , a n d h a s as p e c if ic , c o n c r e te in te r e s t in e lim in a tin g a n y d e c e p tiv e p r a c tic e s th a t m a yh a v e c o n tr ib u te d to its c au s e . C f. L uc e nt , 6 4 2 F .3 d a t 7 3 8 ( s ta te ’s in te r e s t to o “g e n e r a l” to r e n d e rit ap a rtyin i nt e r e s t ) . T he C e nt e rf

orR e s pons i bl e L e ndi ng e s t i m a t e s tha tf r om 2009 t o 2012, f or e c l os ur e s on ne i ghbor i ng hom e s w i l l r e s ul ti n l os thom e e qui tyi n ne a r l yone m illio n h o m e s a c r o s s N e v a d a , a m o u n tin g to to ta l lo s t h o m e e q u ityo f $ 5 4 .5C tr . f o rR e s p o n s ib le L e n d in g , T he Cos t of B ad L e ndi ng i n N

e v ada ( A ug. 3 2 0 1 1 ) , a v a ila b le a t w w w . resp o n si b l el en d i n g . o rg /m o rt g ag e-l en d i n g /t o o l sr e s o u r c e s /f

a c ts h e e ts /n e v a d a .h tm l. D e b b ie B o c ia n , e t

al. , L os t G r ound 2011: D is

par i t i e s i n Mor t

gage L e ndi ng 4 an d Forec losures a t A p p e n d ix 2 ( N o v . 2 0 1 1 ) , av ai lable at w w w . r e s pons i bl e l e ndi ng. or g/m ort ga ge - l e ndi ng/r e s e a r c h- a na l y s i s / l os t - gr ound2 0 1 1 .h tm l. 17 bi l l i on. T he c i ty of

L a s V e ga s ha s the s e c ond hi ghe s tf or e c l os ur e r a t e i n the 3 n a tio n . C o n s id e r in g th e d e v a s ta tin g e f f e c t o f th e f o r e c lo s u r e c r is is o n N e v a d a , it is 4 uns urpr i s i ng tha tthe A tt orne y G e ne r a l w oul d e xe r c i s e he rs t a tut oryr i ghtt o “ br i ng an ac t i on i n the nam e of the S t at e of N evada” a gai nstany per son w ho m she “ has re as on t o b el i eve . . . has e ng aged or i s e ng agi ng i n a decept i ve tra de pract i ce ” r e la te d to m o rtg a g e - f

in a n c in g . N e v . R e v . S ta t. § 5 9 8 .0 9 6 3 ( 3 ) . N e va da ’ s s ove r e i gn i nt e r e s ti n pr ot e c t i ng i t s c i t i z e ns a nd e c onom yf r om de c e pt i ve m ort ga ge pr a c t i c e s i s notdi m i ni s he d m e r e l ybe c aus e i tha s t a c ke d on a c la im f o rr e s titu tio n . Se e, e . g. , M adi gan , 665 F . 3d a t773- 74 ( par e ns patr i ae s u it no tre m ov abl e und erC A F A despi t e c l ai m for tre bl e dam ages on behal f of harm ed r e s i de nt s ) . I n Chi m ei , a l though w e di d notr e a c h the i s s ue of w he the rac l a i m f

or re st i tut i on i n a consum erprot ec t i on ac t i on re nd er ed the consum er s the re al part i es i n i nt e r e s t , the di s tr i c tc ourtha d c onc l ude d tha t“ the S t a t e s of C a l i f orni aa nd W a s hi ngt on a r e the r e a l pa rt i e s i n i nt e r e s tbe c aus e both S t a t e s ha ve as ove r e i gn18

in te r e s t in th e e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

th e irc o n s u m e rp r o te c tio n a n d a n titru s t la w s . . . [ a n d ] in s e c u r in g a n h o n e s t m a rk e tp la c e a n d th e e c o n o m ic w e ll- b e in g o f th e ir ci t i ze ns. ” I

n r e T F T -L C D ( Flat P ane l ) A nt i tr us t

L i t i g. , 2011 W L 560593, a t*5 ( N . D . C a l . F e b. 15, 2011) . H e r e , a s i n Chi m ei , th e rest i tu t i o n th atN ev ad a seek s,

“ w hi l e on b ehal f of i t s c on sum er s, w ou l d fi rs tbe pai d t o the S t at e and di stri bu t ed on an equi t abl e bas i s. ” I d. T h a t in d iv id u a l c o n s u m e r s m a ya ls o b e n e f it f r o m th is l aw sui tdo es no t“ negat e [ N evada’ s] subst ant i al i nt er es t [] i n [thi s] ca se [] . ” Id. See al s o C i t y& Cnt y . of San Fr anc is c o v . P G & EC or p. , 4 3 3 F .3 d 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 2 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “I n th is c a s e , a s in e v e ryc a s e in v o lv in g r e s titu tio n , as u c c e s s f u l r e s u lt for the go vernm ent al ent i t i es m ayw el l re sul ti n m on eybei ng pai d t o p ri vat e part i es . . . . H o w e v e r , th e . . . r e s titu tio n c la im s f ile d b yth e g o v e rn m e n ta l e n titie s in th is ca se ar e f

un dam ent al l y l aw enforce m entac t i on s des i gn ed t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c. ”) S i m i l a r l y , a ny a w a r d of r e s t i tut i on da m a ge s he r e w oul d be pa i d di r e c t l yt o N e va da a n d th e n d is tr ib u te d to in d iv id u a l c o n s u m e r s . See N e v . R e v . S ta t. § 5 9 8 .0 9 7 5 ( 3 ) ( b ) . In a vi rtual l y i dent i ca l ac t i on brou gh tby the A ri zona A tt orney G ener al agai nstB ank o f A m er i ca , the D i stri ctC ou rtof A ri zona al so re as on ed thatthe fa ct “[t] h at so m e p riv ate p ar ti es m ay re ce iv e r es ti tu ti o n d o es n o t n eg ate th e S tate’s subst ant i al i nt er es tor re nd erthe ent i re ac t i on re m ov abl e. ” A ri zona exre l. H

orne v.19

C ountr y w i de Fi n. C or

p. , N o. C V -11-00 13 1-F JM , 20 11 W L 99 59 63 , at*3 (D . A ri z. M a r . 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 ) . A s in th e A r iz o n ac a s e , th e S ta te o f N e v a d ais th e r e a l p a rtyin i nt er es tbecause of i t s “ i nt er es ti n ‘ prot ec t i ng the i nt egri ty of the re si dent i al m ort ga ge l oa n bus i ne s s ’ a nd pr e ve nt i ng c ons um e rf r aud i n l oa n m odi f

i c a t i ons a nd fore cl osures . ” I

d. M o r e o v e r , “th e S ta te h a s a n in te r e s t in th e e n f o r c e m e n t o f

its ow n st at e c ou rtj ud gm entand i t s c on sum erfr aud l aw s. ” I d. T he st at e’ s s trong and d i st i ncti nt er es ti n thi s l i t i gat i on i s f urther s tr e ngthe ne d by the othe rf orm s of r e l i e f i ts e e ks . U nl i ke i n L uc e nt , w he r e the i nt e r e s t s tha tw e r e uni que t o D F E H ’ s l a w s ui tw e r e “ t a nge nt i a l , ” he r e N e va das e e ks s ubs t a nt i a l r e l i e f

tha ti s a va i l abl e t o i ta l one . F i r s t , i ts e e ks e nf or c e m e ntof

the C o n s e n t J u d g m e n t, w h ic h e x p lic itlyd is c la im s ap r iv a te r ig h t o f a c tio n . S e c o n d , it se eks c i vi l penal t i es un der the D T P A , w hi ch ar e notavai l abl e t o i nd i vi du al c o n s u m e r s . See N ev. R ev. S t at . § 5 98 . 09 99 (2). T hi rd, i tse eks i nj un ct i ve re l i ef , w i th r e s pe c tt o w hi c h the S t a t e f a c e s am uc h l ow e rs t a nda r d of pr oof tha n w oul d be re q u ired fo r a law su itb ro u g h t b y in d iv idu al co n su m er s. U n d erN ev ad a law , “ [t]o obt a i n i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

i n as t a tut orye nf

or c e m e nta c t i on [ a l l e gi ng ade c e pt i ve tr a de pr a c t i c e ] , as t a t e orgove rnm e nta ge nc yne e d onl ys how . . . ar e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood thatthe st atut e w as vi ol at ed. ” N e v a da ex r e l. Of

f i c e o f th e A t t ’ yGe n . v . NOS C om m c ’ ns , I

nc . , 84 P . 3d 10 52 , 10 55 (N ev. 20 04 ). A pri vat e party, on the otherB e c aus e w e c onc l ude tha tthi s c a s e i s notam a s s a c t i on, w e ne e d notde c i de 5 w h e th e rit f

a lls u n d e rth e “g e n e r a l p u b lic ” e x c e p tio n to m a s s a c tio n ju r is d ic tio n . See 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2(d)(11)(B )( i i )( II I) (provi di ng thatthe t erm “ m as s a ct i on ” does noti nc l ude a ny a c t i on i n w hi c h “ a l l of the c l a i m s i n the a c t i on a r e a s s e rt e d on behal f of the generalpu bl i c ( and n oton behal f of i nd i vi du al cl ai m ant s or m em bers of a purpo rt ed cl as s) pu rs uantt o a S t at e s t atut e s peci fi ca l l y autho ri zi ng such ac t i on ”) . 20 h a n d , w o u ld b e r e q u ir e d to s a tis f y th e h ig h e rb u r d e n o f

d e m o n s tr a tin g irr e p a r ab le h a rm a n d a n in a d e q u a te le g a l r e m e d y . Id . a t1054. F ourth, N e va das e e ks t o r e c oup th e co st s o f i t s su b st an t i al i n v est i g at i o n i n t o B an ko f A m eri ca’ s p ract i ces. T h e C o m p la in t, r e a d a s aw h o le , d e m o n s tr a te s th a t N e v a d ais th e r e a l p a rty in in te r e s t in th is a c tio n . T h e r e f o r e , n e ith e rC A F A ’s m in im a l d iv e r s ity r e q u i r e me n t , 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 3 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) , n o ri t s n u me r o s i tyr e q u i r e me n t , 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 3 2 ( d ) ( 1 1 ) ( B ) ( i) , is s a tis f ie d . T h e S ta te o f

N e v a d ais th e r e a l p a rtyin in te r e s t, s o th e a c tio n f

a lls 9 9 p e r s o n s s h o rt o f

a“m a s s a c tio n .” 5 I V. A s a n a l t e rna t i ve ba s i s f ori t s e xe r c i s e of

j ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s a c t i on, the di s tr i c tc ourthe l d tha ti tha d f e de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on be c aus e r e s ol ut i on of the S t a t e ’ s c l a i m s “ ne c e s s a r i l y r e qui r e s the c ons truc t i on of f e de r a l l a w . ” A l though the C o m p la in t a lle g e s p u r e lys ta te la w c la im s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t it w o u ld be re qu i re d t o con strue H A M P t o d et erm i ne w hether B ank o f A m er i ca m i sr epre se nt ed w hatthe H A M P prog ra m perm i t s or r equi re s. B ank o f A m er i ca21

c ont e nds tha touri nt e r l oc ut ory appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on doe s note xt e nd t o r e vi e w of thi s j ur i s di c t i ona l ba s i s . W e di s a gr e e , a nd c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtl a c ks f e de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s a c t i on. A. U nd erC A F A , “ a c ou rtof appeal s m ayac ce ptan appealfr om an order of a d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n tin g o rd e n y in g am o tio n to r e m a n d ac la s s a c tio n to th e S ta te c ourtf r om w hi c h i tw a s r e m ove d i f appl i c a t i on i s m a de t o the c ourtof appe a l s not m or e tha n 10 da y s a f

t e re ntry of

the or de r . ” 28 U . S . C . § 1453( c ) ( 1) . S e c t i on 1 4 5 3 (c ) m o d ifies 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 7 (d ), w h ich se ts fo rth th e g en er al ru le th at “[a]n or de rr e m a ndi ng ac a s e t o the S t a t e c ourtf r om w hi c h i tw a s r e m ove d i s not r e vi e w abl e on appe a l orothe rw i s e . ” B a nk of A m e r i c ac ont e nds tha t§ 1453( c ) ( 1) co n fe rs ap p ellate ju risd icti o n li m it ed to th e C A F A issu es inth e d istrict co u rt’s o r d e r , a n d th a tN e v a d a ’ s f a i l u r e t o a l s o s e e kc e rt i f i c a t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1292( b) of

the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on tha ti tha s f e de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on p r e c l u d e s ap p e l l a t e r e v i e w. W e ha ve notpr e vi ous l y a ddr e s s e d w he the rw e pos s e s s appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on ov era non -C A F A i ss ue deci ded i n an o rderappeal abl e und er§ 1 45 3(c) (1), a l though the que s t i on s e e m s s tr a i ght f orw a r d. T he pl a i n l a ngua ge of § 1453( c ) ( 1) c onf e r s j ur i s di c t i on ove r“ a n or de rof adi s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt i ng orde ny i ng am ot i on22

to r e m a n d ac la s s a c tio n .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) . T h e T e n th C ir c u it r e c e n tly “co n clu d ed th at itw as ‘fre e to co n sid eran y p o ten ti al erro r in th e d istrict co u rt’s d ec isio n , n o t j u st a m istak e in ap p li ca ti o n o f th e C lass A ctio n F airn es s A ct.’ ” C o ffe yv . Fr e e p o r t McMo r a n C o

p p e r& G o ld , 58 1 F . 3d 12 40 , 12 47 (10th C i r. 2009) ( quot i ng B ri l l

v. C ou ntry w i de H

om e L oa ns, Inc. , 4 2 7 F .3 d 4 4 6 , 4 5 1 - 5 2 ( 7 th C i r. 20 05 )) . W e are al so gu i ded b y the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s c on cl usi on thatan ap p e lla te c o u rt’s in te r lo c u to ry ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 ( b ) p e rm its it to

“ addres s any i ss ue fa i rl y i ncl ud ed w i thi n the ce rt i fi ed order because i ti s the order thati s app ea l abl e, and n otthe control l i ng qu es t i on i dent i fi ed by the di stri ctcourt . ” Y am aha MotorC or

p. v . Calhoun , 5 1 6 U .S . 1 9 9 , 2 0 5 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . M o r e o v e r , it is w e ll e s tab lis h e d th a t “ac o u rt m a y r a is e th e q u e s tio n o f s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n , s ua s p o n te , atany t i m e duri ng the pend encyof the ac t i on , even on appeal . ” Sn el l v. C lev elan d, Inc. , 3 1 6 F .3 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . B a nk of A m e r i c a ’ s r e l i a nc e on A nde rs on v . B ay e rC or p. , 6 1 0 F .3 d 3 9 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2010) , a nd Pa t te rs o n v . De a n Mo rr is , L. L. P. , 4 4 8 F .3 d 7 3 6 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , is m i s pl a c e d. I n e a c h of

thos e appe a l s , the c i r c ui tc ourt s r e vi e w e d or de r s by the di s tr i c tc ourt s tha tha d r e m a nde d t o s t a t e c ourtc a s e s r e m ove d unde rC A F A f or f a ilu r e to s a tis f

y C A F A ’s r e m o v a l r e q u ir e m e n ts . O n ap p e a l, th e F if th a n d S e v e n th C i rc ui t s a ff

i rm ed the di stri ctcourt s’ re m and o rder s, and d et erm i ned thatthey23

l ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der other j uri sdi ct i on al base s f or re m ov al t o federa l c ourtbe c aus e or de r s gr a nt i ng r e m a nd a r e ge ne r a l l ynon- r e vi e w abl e unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 7 ( d ) . Se e A nde rs on , 6 1 0 F .3 d a t 3 9 4 ; P at te rs on , 4 4 8 F .3 d a t 7 4 2 . E a c h c i r c ui tde c i s i on r e a s one d tha ti tw oul d be s t a tut or i l ypr ohi bi t e d f r om r e vi e w i ng the non- C A F A i s s ue i f tha tha d be e n the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s ol e ba s i s f or r e m a n d . Se e A nde rs on , 61 0 F . 3d at39 4 (“ T ypi ca l l y, fe dera l court s of app ea l ar e b a rr e d f r o m r e v ie w in g d is tr ic t c o u rt o r d e r s r e m a n d in g r e m o v e d c a s e s to s ta te c o u rt.” ) ; P at te rs on , 44 8 F . 3d at74 2 (af t erconcl ud i ng thatC A F A i s i napp l i cabl e,

“ [a ] l l thatre m ai ns i s an o rderequi t abl y r em andi ng these ac t i on s und er§ 1 45 2(b), w h ic h w e c a n n o t r e a c h w ith o u t c o n tr a v e n in g ap la in s ta tu to ryc o m m a n d ” ) . C on vers el y, here , w e r evi ew an order denyi ng re m and o n b oth C A F A and federa l q u e s tio n g r o u n d s . T h e r e is n o e q u iv a le n t s ta tu to ryc o n s tr a in t o n o u rp o w e rto exer ci se appel l at e j uri sdi ct i on ov eran order de ny i ngr e m a n d . Se e, e . g. , Sh ee ran v. G e n. E le c . C o. , 5 9 3 F .2 d 9 3 , 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) . W e the r e f

or e c onc l ude tha tbe c aus e § 1453( c ) ( 1) pe rm i t s appe l l a t e r e vi e w of r e m a n d o r d e r s “n o tw ith s ta n d in g s e c tio n 1 4 4 7 ( d ) ,” w e h a v e th e d is c r e tio n to ent ert ai n the i ss ue of w hether ano ther bas i s f or fe dera l j uri sdi ct i on exi st s that w o u ld ju s tif

y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f N e v a d a ’s m o tio n . G iv e n th e w e lle s t abl i s he d pr i nc i pl e tha tw e m a ya f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de ron a nygr ound24

f a ir lyp r e s e n te d in th e r e c o r d , V an A s dale v . I

nt ’ l G am e T e c h. , 577 F . 3d 989, 994 (9th C i r. 20 09 ), w e e xerc i se ou r di sc re t i on t o con si der w hether the di stri ctcourt c o rr e c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t it h a d f e d e r a l q u e s tio n ju r is d ic tio n . See C of f ey , 581 F . 3d a t1247 ( “ T he r e i s no l a ngua ge [ i n § 1453( c ) ( 1) ] l i m i t i ng the c ourt ’ s c ons i de r a t i on s o le lyto th e C A F A is s u e s in th e r e m a n d o r d e r .” ) . W e rej ectB an ko f A m eri ca’ s su g g est i o n th at , i n th ese ci rcu m st an ces, N e va dac oul d onl y obt a i n i nt e r l oc ut oryr e vi e w of the i s s ue of

f e de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on thr ough the c e rt i f i c a t i on pr oc e s s a s both i m pr a c t i c a l a nd c ontr a ryt o the p u rp o ses o f C A F A . A s th e l eg i sl at i v e h i st o ry o f C A F A d em o n strat es, th e p u rp o se of § 1453( c ) “ ‘ i s t o de ve l op abodyof appe l l a t e l a w i nt e rpr e t i ng [ C A F A ] w i thout un du l y del ay i ng the l i t i gat i on of cl as s a ct i on s. ’ ” C of f ey , 581 F . 3d a t1247 ( quot i ng S . R e p . N o . 1 0 9 - 1 4 , a t 4 9 , r e pr i nte d i n 2 0 0 5 U .S .C .C .A .N . a t 4 6 ) ( a lte r a tio n s in o r ig in a l) . T o s e c u r e e x p e d ite d r e v ie w , § 1 4 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) r e q u ir e s th a t o n c e th e ap p e lla te c o u rt a c c e p ts th e ap p e a l o f th e o r d e r , it “s h a ll c o m p le te a ll a c tio n o n s u c h ap p e a l, i ncl ud i ng re nd er i ng j ud gm ent , no tl at erthan 6 0 d ay s a ft erthe dat e on w hi ch such appe a l w a s f

i l e d . . . . ” S e c t i on 1292( b) doe s notc ont a i n as i m i l a rt i m e c ons tr a i nt for r evi ew . R equi ri ng com pl i ance w i th the ce rt i fi ca t i on proces s f or re vi ew of an i nde pe nde ntba s i s f

orthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e xe r c i s e of j ur i s di c t i on c oul d de l a ythe l i t i ga t i on i nde f

i ni t e l y , thus unde rm i ni ng the ve rypurpos e of C A F A . W hi l e the25

C A F A i ss ues w ou l d b e r es ol ved w i thi n 6 0 d ay s, the di stri ctcourtand the part i es w ou l d rem ai n i n the dark as t o w hether they s ho ul d p roce ed i n st at e or f eder al c o u rt. I n e n a c tin g C A F A , C o n g r e s s c o u ld n o t h a v e in te n d e d s u c h a n ab s u r d r e s u lt. B. D ec l i ni ng t o exerci se ou r di sc re t i on t o d et erm i ne w hether the di stri ctcourt h a s f e d e r a l q u e s tio n ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 o v e rth is c a s e w o u ld r e s ul ti n w a s t e d j udi c i a l r e s our c e s w he r e , a s he r e , w e c onc l ude tha tthe r e i s no f e d e r a l q u e s tio n ju r is d ic tio n . T he S upr e m e C ourtha s ne ve rs t a t e d a“ s i ngl e , pr e c i s e , a l l - e m br a c i ng t e s tf or j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er fed eral i ssu es em b ed d ed i n st at e-l aw cl ai m s b etw een n o n d i v erse part i es . ” G r able & Sons Me tal P r ods . v . D ar ue E ng’

g & M f g. , 545 U . S . 308, 314 ( 2005) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A s t a t e c aus e of a c t i on i nv ok es fe dera l qu es t i on j uri sdi ct i on on l y i f i t“ nece ss ar i l y r ai se [s ] a s t at ed fe dera l is s u e , a c tu a llyd is p u te d a n d s u b s ta n tia l, w h ic h af e d e r a l f o ru m m a ye n te rta in w ith o u t d is tu rb in g a n y c o n g r e s s io n a llyap p r o v e d b a la n c e o f f e d e r a l a n d s ta te j ud i ci al re spon si bi l i t i es . ” I d. T hi s type of

f e de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on appl i e s t o a “s p e c ia l a n d s m a ll c a te g o ry ” o f c a s e s , in to w h ic h th is c a s e d o e s n o t f a ll . E m p i re H e al thc hoi c e A s s ur anc e v . Mc V e i gh , 54 7 U . S . 67 7, 69 9 (20 06 ).26

H er e, the C om pl ai ntra i se s e xcl usi vel y s t at e l aw cl ai m s. N evada al l eges that B a nk of A m e r i c avi ol a t e d the D T P A a nd the C ons e ntJ udgm e nt . T he C om pl a i nt doe s a l l e ge m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons aboutthe f e de r a l H A M P pr ogr a m a nd vi ol a t i ons of the F a i rD e btC ol l e c t i on P r a c t i c e s A c t( “ F D C P A ” ) , 15 U . S . C . § 1692 et se q . S p e c if ic a lly , th e C o m p la in t a lle g e s th a t B a n ko f A m e r ic a“[ m ]is r e p r e s e n t[ e d ] to c ons um e r s tha tthe y m us tbe de l i nque nton the i rl oa ns i n or de rt o qua l i f yf or a s s i s t a nc e , e ve n though ne i the rB a nk of A m e r i c a ’ s pr opr i e t a rypr ogr a m s northe f e de r a l H A M P pr ogr a m r e qui r e s tha thom e ow ne r s ha ve m i s s e d pa y m e nt s . ” T he C o m p la in t a ls o a lle g e s th a t B a n ko f A m e r ic a ’s m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s to c r e d it a ge nc i e s c onc e rni ng c ons um e r s ’ c r e di thi s t ory“ vi ol a t e the F a i rD e btC ol l e c t i on P r a c t i c e s A c t , 15 U . S . C . §§ 1692e ( 2) ( A ) & ( 8) , a nd, a s ar e s ul t , the N e va da D e c e p tiv e T r a d e P r a c tic e s A c t.” B y s o a l l e gi ng, N e va dadoe s not“ ne c e s s a r i l yr a i s e a. . . s ubs t a nt i a l ” i s s ue of f e d e r a l la w . G r a b le , 545 U . S . a t314. T he “ m e r e pr e s e nc e of af e de r a l i s s ue i n a st at e c ause of ac t i on do es no taut om at i ca l l y c on fe r f eder al -quest i on j uri sdi ct i on . ” Me rr e l l D ow P harm s . I

nc . v . T hom ps on , 47 8 U . S . 80 4, 81 3 (19 86 ). T he fe dera l is s u e s h e r e a r e n o t “p iv o ta l” to N e v a d a ’s c a s e . L i ppi t t v . R ay m ond J

am e s Fi n. Servs. Inc. , 340 F . 3d 1033, 1046 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . T he gr a va m e n of the C om pl a i nt i s tha tB a nk of

A m e r i c avi ol a t e d N e va da ’ s D T P A thr ough num e r ous27

m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , s o m e ab o u t th e H A M P p r o g r a m , a n d s o m e w h ic h a ls o v io la te the F D C P A . F ore xa m pl e , N e va daa l l e ge s tha tB a nk of A m e r i c avi ol a t e d the D T P A by : “ pr om i s i ng t o a c tupon r e que s t s f orm ort ga ge m odi f

i c a t i ons w i thi n a sp eci fi c p eri o d o f t i m e” an d th en fai l i n g t o d o so ; g i v i n g co n su m ers “ fal se a s s ur a nc e s tha tthe i rhom e s w oul d notbe f or e c l os e d w hi l e the i rr e que s t s f or m odi f i c a t i ons w e r e pe ndi ng” ; pr ovi di ng “ i na c c ur a t e a nd de c e pt i ve r e a s ons f or denyi ng . . . re qu es t s f

or m od i fi ca t i on s” ; and “ m i sr epre se nt i ng thatconsum er s [ h a d ] b e e n ap p r o v e d f

o rm o d if ic a tio n s .” “ W he n ac l a i m c a n be s upport e d by a l t e rna t i ve a nd i nde pe nde ntthe or i e s — one of w hi c h i s as t a t e l a w the orya nd one of w hi ch i s afe dera l l aw theory— fe dera l qu es t i on j uri sdi ct i on do es no tatt ac h because f

eder al l aw i s nota nec es saryel em entof the cl ai m . ” R ai ns v . Cr i te r i on Sys. , Inc. , 8 0 F .3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . N or do es the C om pl ai nt ’ s r ef er ence t o the F D C P A nece ss ar i l y r ai se a s ubs t a nt i a l i s s ue of

f e de r a l l a w . T he N e va daD T P A i nc l ude s a“ borr ow i ng” prov i si on , m aki ng i ta vi ol at i on of the D T P A t o “ [v] i ol at e[ ] a s t at e or f eder al s t a tut e orr e gul a t i on r e l a t i ng t o the s a l e orl e a s e of goods ors e rvi c e s . ” N e v. R e v. S ta t. § 5 9 8 .0 9 2 3 ( 3 ) . C a lif o rn ia ’s U n f

a irC o m p e titio n L a w ( “U C L ” ) , C a l. B u s . & P r o f . C o d e § 1 7 2 0 0 , c o n ta in s as im ila r“b o rr o w in g ” p r o v is io n , a n d “C a lif o rn ia di s tr i c tc ourt s ha ve he l d tha tm e r e r e f e r e nc e s t o f

e de r a l l a w i n U C L c l a i m s do not28

conv ertthe cl ai m i nt o a fe dera l cause of a ct i on . ” G ue rr a v . Carr i ngton Mor t g. Se rvs . LLC , 20 10 W L 26 30 27 8, at*2 (C . D . C al . June 29 , 20 10 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed); see a l so G a rdu n o v. N

a t ’l B a n k o f A ri z. , 73 8 F . S up p. 2d 10 04 , 10 09 (D . A ri z. 2 0 1 0 ). B an ko f A m eri ca co n ced es th atth e m ere u se o f a fed eral st atu t e as a p red i cat e fo r a st at e l aw cau se o f act i o n d o es n o tn ecessaril y tran sfo rm th atcau se of a c t i on i nt o af

e de r a l c l a i m , buta s s e rt s tha tthi s c a s e i s a n e xc e pt i on t o the g e n e r a l ru le b e c au s e it p o s e s s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n s ab o u t th e s c o p e a n d ap p lic ab ility of the F D C P A

— spec i fi ca l l y, w hether the F D C P A appl i es atal l t o m ort gage l oan se rvi ce rs . H ow ever , the S up re m e C ou rthas caut i on ed agai nstfi nd i ng fe dera l qu es t i on j uri sdi ct i on on the grou nd thata c as e pre se nt s ano vel i ss ue of fe dera l l aw : “ W e do n otbel i eve the qu es t i on w hether apart i cul arcl ai m ar i se s und er fe dera l l aw depend s on the no vel ty of the fe dera l i ss ue. ” Me rr e l l D ow , 47 8 U . S . at 81 7. T here fore , N evada’ s gl anci ng re fe re nce t o federa l l aw i s i nsuffi ci entt o con fe r fed eral j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er N ev ad a’ s st at e l aw cl ai m s. E ve n w he r e as t a t e l a w c l a i m doe s ne c e s s a r i l yturn on as ubs t a nt i a l a nd di sput ed qu es t i on of fe dera l l aw , re m ov al i s s ubj ec tt o a “ po ss i bl e vet o” w here e xe r c i s i ng f

e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on i s not“ c ons i s t e ntw i th c ongr e s s i ona l j udgm e ntabout the s ound di vi s i on of

l aborbe tw e e n s t a t e a nd f e de r a l c ourt s gove rni ng the appl i ca t i on of § 1 33 1. ” G r a b le , 54 5 U . S . at31 3. T he exerc i se of fe dera l29

j uri sdi ct i on m ustno t“ di sturb[] any c on gres si on al l y app roved b al ance of fe dera l and st at e j ud i ci al re spon si bi l i t i es . ” I d. at31 4. T he S up re m e C ou rthas i nstruct ed f e de r a l c ourt s t o appr oa c h 28 U . S . C . § 1331 “ ‘ w i th a n e y e t o pr a c t i c a l i tya nd nece ss i ty. ’ ” Me rr e l l

D ow , 478 U . S . a t810 ( quot i ng Fra n ch ise T a x B d. v. C o n str. L a b o rers V

a ca t i o n T

ru st , 4 6 3 U .S . 1 , 2 0 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ) . T h e C o u rt h a s “c o n s is te n tly e m pha s i z e d tha t , i n e xpl or i ng the out e rr e a c he s of § 1331, de t e rm i na t i ons about fe dera l j uri sdi ct i on re qu i re se nsi t i ve j ud gm ent s abo utcong re ss i on al i nt ent , j ud i ci al po w er , and the fe dera l sy st em . ” I d. H e r e , unl i ke i n G r a b le , e xe r c i s i ng f e de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on w oul d ha ve m ore than a “ m i cr oscopi c e ff ec ton the fe dera l -s t at e di vi si on of l abor. ” G r a b le , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 3 1 5 . S ta te c o u rts f r e q u e n tlyh a n d le s ta te - la w c o n s u m e rp r o te c tio n s u its tha tr e f e rt o ora r e pr e di c a t e d on s t a nda r ds s e tf orth i n f e de r a l s t a tut e s . E xe r c i s i ng fe dera l qu es t i on j uri sdi ct i on ov erany s t at e l aw cl ai m thatre fe re nces a f eder al c ons um e rpr ot e c t i on s t a tut e w oul d “ he r a l d[ ] apot e nt i a l l ye norm ous s hi f tof tra di t i on al l y s t at e c as es i nt o federa l court s. ” I d. a t 3 1 9 . T h e N ev ad a A tt o rn ey G en eral b ro u g h tth i s par e ns patr i ae a c tio n in s ta te c o u rt to e n f

o r c e its o w n s ta te c o n s u m e rp r o te c tio n la w s . N e v a d aa lle g e s o n lys ta te l aw cau ses o f act i o n , b ro u g h tt o p ro t ectN ev ad a resi d en t s. U n d er th ese ci rcu m st an ces, th e “ cl ai m o f so v erei g n p ro t ect i o n fro m rem o v al ari ses i n i t s m o st30

po w er ful form . ” Mc G r aw , 6 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 7 8 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) .

“ [ C ] ons i de r a t i ons of

c om i ty m a ke [ f

e de r a l c ourt s ] r e l uc t a ntt o s na t c h c a s e s w hi c h a S t at e has brou gh tfr om the court s of thatS t at e, un l es s s om e c l ear rul e dem ands i t . ” Fr anc his e T

ax B d. , 4 6 3 U. S . a t2 1 n . 2 2 . R e m o v i n g as t a t e ’ s a c t i o n f r o m i t s o wn court s m ust“ se rve[ ] an ov erri di ng fe dera l i nt er es t . ” Mc G r aw , 6 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 7 8 . B a nk of A m e r i c aha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha ta ny“ c l e a rrul e de m a nds ” r e m ova l , nor tha tr e m ova l “ s e rve s a n ove rr i di ng f e de r a l i nt e r e s t . ” T he r e f or e , N e va da ’ s s tr ong s ove r e i gn i nt e r e s ti n e nf or c i ng i t s s t a t e l a w s — a nd i t s s t a t e - l a w - c r e a t e d C ons e nt J u d g m e n t— in th e c o u rts o f its o w n s ta te w e ig h s in f a v o ro f r e m a n d to its s ta te c o u rts y s t e m. V. F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng N e v a d a ’s m o tio n to r e m a n d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt is in s tru c te d to r e m a n d th is c a s e to the E i gh th Jud i ci al D i stri ctC ou rti n C l ark C ou nty, N evada. RE V E RS E D.31 C O U N SEL C atheri ne C ort ez M as t o, B i nu P al al , Je ff re y S egal , O ff

i ce of the N evada A tt orney G e n e r a l , La s V e g a s , N V , Li n d aSi n g e r , Co h e n M i l s t e i n Se l l e r s & To l l PLLC, W as hi ng t on , D C , for P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l antS t at e of N evada. M atthew W . C l ose, O ’ M el veny & M ye rs L L P , L os A ng el es , C A , L es l i e B ry an H art , Jo h n D . T en n ert , L i o n el S aw yer & C o l l i n s, R en o , N V , fo r D efen d an t sA p p e lle e s B a n ko f

A m e r ic aC o rp o r a tio n e t a l. B e rna r d A . E s ka nda r i , O f f i c e of the C a l i f

orni aA tt orne yG e ne r a l , L os A nge l e s , f or A m i ci C uri ae S t at e of C al i forni a, S t at e of O re go n, and S t at e of A ri zona. N i na F . S i m on , C ent erfor R es po nsi bl e L endi ng , W as hi ng t on , D C , for A m i ci C u r ia e C e n te rf

o rR e s p o n s ib le L e n d in g , A A R P , a n d C o n s u m e rL a w C e n te r .