Wegrante d pe rm is siont o a pp eal onS ep te mb er1 , 2 0 0 9 , purs u a nt to28 U. S.C

. § 1 145 3(c), under Ca se No . 09 -34. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10851 S u m m ary C al en da r
LE TI CI A AL VAREZ ; DAVI D ANGU I ANO; ROBER T BARDW EL L; W I LL I AM B O U L D IN ; B R U C E C O N W AY ; E T A L , P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v. M I DLAND CRE DI T M ANAGEM ENT, I NC. ; J AY A. T AYL OR, P
. C. ; HENRY M CD ONA L D A ND J AMES , P
. C. ; HOS T O A ND B UCHA N, P
. L
. L
. C. ; MANN B R A C K E N , L .L .C ., S u c c e s s o rb y M e r g e rto W o lp o ff a n d A b r a m s o n L .L .P .; R L I IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y ; W E S T E R N S U R E T YC O M P A N Y ; M E L V IN T HAT HI AH; T RAVE L ER S C AS UAL T Y& S URE T YC OMPA NYOF A M E R IC A ; J AYA . T AY L O R ; U N IV E R S A L S U R E T YO F A M E R IC A , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: T h i s ca se inv olves an i n terlocu tory ap p ea l of a de n i a lof a m oti on to 1
r em and i n a c as e r em ove d purs uant t o t he C l as s A c t i on Fairne ss A c tof 2005 ( “ C A FA ” ) , Pu b. L. N o. 10 9 -2 , 119 St at
. 4 ( c odi f i ed i n sc at t er ed s ec t i ons of 28 United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 19, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 10851

Aft erwegrante d pe rm is siont o a pp eal a n d th e app eal wa s do ck et edinthisc ourt , a 2 numb er of th e o riginal 1 54 plaintiffs settle d witht he defe ndants an d fil ed stipulation s of dismissal. The effect of th ese di smissals was to b rin g the numb er of plaintiffs down to a numb er under the CAFA thresho ld of 100 plaintiffs. Citin g thi s fact, the district court entered an order of re mand on Septe mber 30 an d denied reco nside ration of that orderonOctob er 8
. We requ ested briefing on the question of whethe r this appealis moot and wheth er the district court lacked jurisdiction to e nterth e o rder of re mand because of th e pe ndency of this appeal
. We concludeth at the district court lacked jurisdiction to ente r th e Se ptember30ord er and, th er efo re, itis voi d a n d do esnotmo otth e a pp eal. See, e.g., Marrese v. Am. Acad. of OrthopaedicS urgeons , 47 0 U .S. 37 3, 3 79 (198 5) (“In ge neral, filin g of anoticeof appeal c onfe rs jurisdictiononth e co urt of appeal s an d divests th e di strict court of control over those aspects of th e ca seinvolvedinth e app eal. ”) (inte rn al citation a n d qu ot ation mark s o mitt ed); Dayto n In dep. Sch . Dist . v. U.S. Mineral P rods . C o. , 90 6 F .2d 1 059 , 10 63 (5thC ir. 1 990). B ecau se th e order is void and because we ar e di smissingthis appeal , w e al s o vacate o ur priorord er, ente red October13 , staying th e Se ptember30 order of reman d. We express no o pinion on the merits of th e di strict court’s re asoning inth at order. 2 U. S

. C. ) , c i t i n g2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 4 5 3 (b )

. F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tf o r t h h e r e i n , we VA C A T E ou r S ep tem b er 1 ord er g ra n ti n g p erm i ssion to ap p ea lan d rem a n d to th e d i stri ct cou rt. 2 I
. Bac kg r o und Few de t ai l s o f

t he pr o cedu ral bac kg r o und o f t hi s c as e m at t e rt o o ur dec i si on her e. W e w i l ldes c r i be onl y t he per t i nent bac kgr ound. A l aw sui tw as f i l ed i n a Texas s t at e di st r i c tc our t
. The Th i r d A m ended Pet i t i on nam ed 15 4 pl ai n t i f fs and sough ta “ m axim u m of $10 0, 000 each. ” Th e case w as st yl ed as a
s u i tf o rd a ma g e s a n d a l l e g e d t h a ta tl e a s ts o me o f t h e p l a i n t i f

fs w e r e t h e v i c t i ms o f fr a u d u le n tly o b ta in e d ju d g m e n ts b y d e fe n d a n t M id la n d C r e d it w ith t h e a id
o f va ri ou s l a w ye rs a n d l a w fi rm s, a l so na m ed a s d efen d a n ts. M i d l a n d C r e d it
a n d i ts attorn ey s w ere accu sed of im p r o p er a n d f ra u d u l en t col l ection eff orts ag ai ns tt he pa r t i e s w ho ar e now t he P l ai nt i f fs - Appe l l ant s b e f

o r e us . O ne f

r aud al l ege d w as t he obt ai ni ng of j udgm ent s bas ed upon de bt s notac t ual l y o w ned by M i d l a n d C red i t. M i d l a n d Cr e d i tr e m o v e d t h e c a s e t o fe d e r a l d i s t r i c tc o u r tu n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 33 2( d)

. Pl ai nt i f

fs - Appe l l ant s m o ve d t o re m and , urg i ng s e ve r algr o unds
. The d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n to re m a n d in J u ly o f 2 0 0 9
.N o. 09- 10851

Rooker v. Fid. TrustC o. , 2 6 3U .S

. 4 1 3( 1 9 2 3); D.C. C ourtof Appeals v. Feld man , 46 0 3 U. S. 4 6 2 ( 1 9 8 3). We imply no impropermotive s bythis statement. Pl aintiffs-Appellants c onte nd that 4 ch a n gedcircu mst a nce s h ave le d toth e ch a n gedapp ro a ch
. 3 Pl ai nt i f fs- A ppell ant s t hen so ught per m i ss i on f r om t hi s c our tunder 28 U
. S. C. § 1 45 3( c ) t o f i l e a n i nt e r l o c ut o r y ap pe alo f t he de ni alo f

t he i rr e m and
m ot i on . Th e § 1453 peti t i on , f i l ed A u gu st3, 200 9, artic u l ated t w o groun ds f or ap pea lt h at are u n i qu e t o C A F A : ( 1) w h at c on st i t u t es “ si gn i f i can trel i ef

” un der C A FA ’ s l o c alc o nt r o ve r s y e xc e pt i o n, a nd ( 2) w hat “ e ve nto ro c c ur r e nc e ” m e ans u n der § 1332 ( d)( 11)( B ) ( i i) ( I)

. Th e peti t i on al so art i cul ated t w o groun ds t h at are
no tuni que t o CA FA : ( 1) w he t he rt he ca us e s of a c t i o n a s s e r t e d a r e s ubj e c tt o t he R o o ke r - Fe l dm an l i m i t ati on s o n f e de r alj ur i s di c t i o n, a nd ( 2) w he t he rM i dl and 3 C r edi tw ai ved i t s r i ght of r em oval , i f

any, by fai l i ng t o f

i l e t he not i c e of

r em oval
sooner. O n t h e basi s of t h i s pet i tion , w e gran t ed p erm i ssi on t o app ealon Sept em ber1. II
. D i scussi on U n d e r C A F A , a n in te rl ocutory appea l i s s u bj ect t o an accel erat ed tim e ta b le w h ic h is t r ig g e r e d b y th e g r a n tin go f p e r m is s io n to a p p e a l. Patt ers on v . De a n Mo r r i s , L. L. P. , 444 F
. 3d 365 , 367 –68 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. In th is ca se, Pl ai nt i f fs- A ppel l ant s w er e r equi r ed t o f i l e t hei rbr i ef w i t hi n t w o w ee ks (by Se pt e m be r1 5) , w hi c h t he y di d. But t hi s b r i e f c o nt ai ne d o nl y o ne o f t he f o ur i ssues liste d above — w h et h er t h e R o o ke r - Fe l dm an do c t r i ne pr e c l ude s t he exerci se of

federalj u ri sdi ct i on in t h i s c ase. Th u s, few er t h an f ort y- f i ve da ys af

t er Pl ai nt i f fs - Appe l l ant s s e t f

o r t h f o ur gr o unds f

o rt he a ppe al , t he y ac t ual l y s o ugh t
r e vi e w o n o nl y o ne g r o und. 4 T h e d e n i a l o f

a m o tio n to re m a n d is a n in te r lo c u to r y o r d e rn o t u s u a lly
s u b je c t t o im m e d ia te a p p e a l. S ee A aron v. Nat’ lUn ion FireI

n s. Co. , 876 F. 2d 115 7, 116 0 ( 5th C i r. 198 9) ( “Adi st ri ctcourt ’ s den i al of a m ot i on t o rem an d i s notN o. 09- 10851

4 a f i n alorder, an d i tt h eref ore is not r evi ew able on app eal
. ” )

. C on gress al t ered t hi s g e ne r alr ul e f

o ra c t i o ns r e m o ve d un de rCA FA , g i vi ng ap pe l l at e c o ur t s t he di scr et i on t o “ accep t a n a p p e alf rom an order of

a di st ri ctcourtgran t i n g or denyi ng a m ot i on t o r em and a c l as s ac t i on t o t he St at e c our tf r om w hi c h i tw as rem oved i f

app l i cat i on i s m ad e t o t h e courtof app eal s not l ess t h an 7 day s af t er en try of the ord er.” 28 U
. S

. C

. § 14 5 3 (c)

. T h i s altered ru le w a s i n ten d ed to fa c i l i t a t e t he de v e l o p m e n to f “ ‘ a b o d y o f

a p p e l l a t e l a w i n t e r p r e t i n g[ CAF A]
w i th ou t un d u l y d elay i n g th e litig a tio n of cl a ss a cti on s. ’ ” S aa b v. Hom e D epot U
. S

. C

. , I

n c. , 469 F
. 3d 758, 759 ( 9t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng S. R ep. N o. 109–14 , at49 (2 0 0 5 )). N ot h i n g abou tt h e R o o ke r - Fe l dm an doct ri n e, w h i ch ap pl i es “ i n t h e l i m i t ed ci rcum st an ces i n w h i ch [ t h e S u prem e C ou rt ’ s] ap pel l ate j u ri sdi ct i on over s t atecou rt j udgm ent s p reclu d es a U n i ted S tates d i stri ct cou rt f rom ex ercisi n g su b j ectm a tt e rju r is d ic tio n in a n a c tio n it w o u ld o th e r w is e b e e m p o w e r e d to a dju d ic a te ,” Exx o n Mo bi lCor

p. v . SaudiBas i c I

ndus

. Cor

p. , 5 4 4 U .S . 2 8 0 , 2 9 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , is uni que t o CA FA

. Al t ho ugh Pl ai nt i f fs - Appe l l ant s s e e k t o st yl e t he i rs o l e pe ndi ng i s s ue a s o ne o f

t he “ i nt e r pl ayb e t w e e n CA FA a nd R o o ke r - Fe l dm an , ” wh e t h e rwe had one pl ai nt i f

f orone thous and w ho cl ai m ed t hat t hey had be en vi c t i m i ze d by
u n savory col l ect i on practi ces as t h e resul tof an al l eged l y f

rau du l en t l y- obtai n ed st ate- court j u dg m en t , t h e R o o ke r - Fe l dm an q u e s tio n w o u ld b e th e s a m e . O u r g r a n t of p e r m is s io n to a p p e a l is d is c r e tio n a r y . Patt ers on , 444 F. 3d at 3 6 9
. W e rec og n i ze tha t § 14 5 3 (c) do es n ot l i m i t ou r d i scre ti on a ry ap p ell a te j ur i s di c t i o n t o m at t e r s uni que o rpe c ul i art o C A FA

. H o w e ve r , i n g r ant i ng us i nt e r l o c ut o r y di s c r e t i o nar y r e vi e w , Co n g r e s s pl ac e d v e r y s ho r tt i m e l i m i t s o n o ur det er m i nat i on o f

s uch appea l s. There f or e, i n exe r c i si ng ourdi sc r et i on t o he ar su ch ap p ea l s w e m u st w eigh th e ti m e tak en from e a rl i er-f i l ed a p p ea l s to ten d to t h e C A F Aapp ealagainstt h e ben ef i tof hea ri n g such an app ealat t h i s j u n ct u re. P artof t h i s w ei gh i n g n ecess ari l y i n vol ves consi derati on of t h e un i qu e na t u re ofN o. 09- 10851

5 th e is s u e s p r e s e n te d in th e p r o p o s e d a p p e a l. See , e . g. , E s t at e of Pew v. C a rd a re lli , 527 F
. 3d 25, 29 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( “Asound exe r c i se of di sc r et i on w i l lbe gui de d b y c o ns i de r at i o n o f t he i m po r t anc e a nd n o ve l t y o f t he i s s ue s r ai s e d b y t he
c a s e .”); S a a b , 469 F
. 3d at 759 ( 8th C i r. 200 6) ( exp l ai n i n g t h at C on gress provi ded f orC A FA appel l at e j uri sdi c t i on i n or dert o “ deve l op a bo dy o f appel l at e l aw i n terp reting the l eg i slati on w i th ou t u n d u l y de l a yin g li ti ga ti on of cl a ss a cti on s”) (in te r n a l cit a tio n a n d q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d ); cf

. Cof f ey v . Fr e e

po r tMc Mo r an C o pp er& G o ld , N o. 09-6106, 200 9 U
. S

. A pp . L E X IS 199 96, at * 1 9 (1 0 t h C i r. S ept. 4, 200 9) ( concl u di n g t h at i t h a d j u ri sdi ct i on un der C A F At o add ress CE RC LA i s s ue s b utde c l i ni ng t o do s o b e c aus e “ i tdo e s no tf i tw i t h t he r e as o ns b e h in d § 1 4 5 3 (c )(1 ) to d o s o ”). A pp l yi n g t h at ana l ysi s t o t h i s c a se , w e concl u de that, ha d the R ookerFe l dm an i ssue been t h e sol e i ssue presented at t h e t i m e of t h e peti t i on f

or pe r m i s s i o n, w e w o ul d no t hav e gr ant e d pe r m i s s i o n t o ap pe al
. As a r e s ul to f t he el i m i nat i on o f

t he uni que i ss u es u n d er CA FA and t he des i r e no tt o r es ol ve com p l ex i ssu es o f fede ra lve rsu s state jurisd i cti on on a lim ite d reco rd w i th abbr evi at ed br i ef

i ng and d eci si onaldeadl i nes , w e c onc l ude t hat ouror i gi nal pe r m i s s i o n w as i m pr o vi de nt l y gr ant e d. Ac c o r di ngl y, w e VA CA TE o ur S e p te m b er 1 , 20 0 9 ord er g ra n ti n g p erm i ssion to ap p ea l , de n y p erm i ssion to ap pe alo n a n i nt e r l o c ut o r y ba s i s t he J ul y 27 or de rde nyi ng r e m and , a nd r e m and t o t h e di st ri ctcourtfora pp ropri ate f u rt h er proc eedi n gs. I n so doi n g, w e express
n o o p in io n on w h e th e r c h a n g e d circ u m sta n ce s d o or sh o u ld a lter th e co u rt ’s ori gi n alJu l y 27 order. PE RM I S S I ON TO AP PE AL VACA TE D; OCT OBER 1 3 S TAY ORDER VA CA T ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED
.