## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 8017 LG D ISPLA Y C O ., L TD ., et al., P etitio ners , v. L I S A M ADI GAN, A tto rneyGenera l o fthe St ate o fI l l i noi s, R es pond ent
.
Pe tition fo r P ermiss ion toA pp eal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:10- cv-05720

—Rob ert M. Dow, Jr. , Judg e.
S UB MI TT ED J UL Y 18, 2011

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 18, 2011

Befo re F LA UM, W I L L I A MS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. The I l l i noi s Attor ney Gener alfi l ed su i t i n the Ci r cui t Cou r t o fCo o kCo unty a g ains t ei g ht m an u fac tu re rs of L C D p an els for v iola tio n s of th e Illino is Anti tr us t Act ( “I AA ”)
. The c o m pl ainta l l eg es tha t th e defe nd ants unlawful l y i nfl ate d p ric es on LCD pro du cts sol d to the s tat e, i ts age nci es, and re si dents and r equests inj un ctive reli ef, civi l p en alties, and t r e b le statut ory2 N o. 11

- 8017 dam age s f or the sta te as a purchas erand, as pare ns pat r i ae, f o r ha r med r e s i de nt s . Th e de f e nd a nt s r e mov e d the cas e to f edera l co u rt u n d erthe Clas s Acti on F ai rnes s Act of 2005 ( “CA FA ”) , 28 U
. S. C. §§ 1332 (d ), 1453. The A tto rney G en er al m ov ed to rem an d an d arg u e d t h at th e s u it di d no t m ee t CA F A re qui r ement s an d tha t, the r efo r e, the dist ri ct cour t did not have j uri sdic ti on. The di str i ct co ur t ag r ee d a nd g r an te d the mot i on to r emand. The defen dan ts no w pet i ti o n f o r pe r m i ss i o n t o a ppea l the rem an d order. Inm os t s itu at ion s , “[a ]n ord er rem an d in g a ca se . . . i s n o tr e v i e wa b l e o n a pp e a l o r o the r wi s e . ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 44 7(d ); Ande rs on v. Baye rCorp. , 61 0 F
. 3d 390, 39 4 ( 7th C ir. 2 010)
. The defendants ar gue, however, thatthe A ttorney Gener al ’ s parens pa tr i aesui t i s a ctual l y a di sgui sed “cl ass act i on” or“m ass act i on” ( and other w i se m eet s C A FA requ irem en ts) and so, un d er CA FA , this cou rt may c o ns i de r a n a pp e a l o f the r e man d o r de r . 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 45 3(c ). In ad d itio n, th e d e f en d an ts arg u e w e s h ou ld gr ant thei r peti ti on be cause thi s ca se pres ents unsettl ed CA FA

- re l ate d questi ons. Sp ec ifi cal l y, theynot e we have yetto deci de w hetherthe “r epres ented par ti es” i n a pare ns pa tria e a c t i on

— i n thi s c a s e , I l l i no i s p ur c ha s e r s o fLC D p an els

— ar e the re al parti es i n i nter est ( an d so m ay sa ti sfy C AFA’s min i m aldi ve r si tyr equi r ement ) a nd w hethersuch an a cti on m ay be r em ove d as a cl ass act i on o r mass a ct i o n. A s we expl ai n bel ow, w e d i sag re e w i th the def endants’ charac te rizati on o fthe case as a disguis ed cl ass act i on orm ass act i on a nd , i n thi s ca se, we are n ot co nvi nced that the pet i ti on s houl d be g ra nted because of i ts novel ty.N o. 11

- 8017 3 T o re ac h a fu n c tio n ally eq u iva l e n t res u lt

— that a pare ns pa tria e acti on s uch as thi s i s no t r em ovabl e under CA FA

— atl ea stt w o o th erc i r cui ts ha ve g r an te d pe ti ti o ns to appe a l a nd the n de ni e d the a pp e a l s o n the me r i ts. Was hi ngt on v. Chi m e iInno l ux Corp
. , ___ F
. 3 d

___, No. 11

- 1686 2, 2011 W L 45430 86 (9th C ir
. Oc tober 3, 2011); Wes t Virginia ex rel
. M cGraw v. CVS P harm acy, Inc. , 64 6 F
. 3d 169, 17 9 ( 4th Ci r. 20 11)
. I n this c ase , however, the proper cour se i s t o deny the p et i ti on f orl ack ofj uri sdic

tio n . S e eL i n c ol n Nat ’ l L i f eIn s . Co
. v . Bezich , 6 10 F. 3d 448, 44 9 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); A nd ers on , 61 0 F
. 3d at 394. On li m i ted occa si ons w e hav e co nclu ded thatwe have j uri sdic ti on to gra n t a p et itio n in a C A FA ca s e t h a t p re se n ts a sig n ific an t n ov el iss u e. Se eKor al v. Boe i ng Co. , 62 8 F
. 3d 945, 94 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( ci ti ng CA FA cas es w here peti ti ons f or appeal have bee n gr anted “be cause the a pp ealpre sents n ov el iss u es ”); Bru l l ar d v
. Bur l i ngt on N or thern Sa nt a F e Ry. , 53 5 F
. 3d 759, 76 1 ( 7th Ci r. 2008) ( gr anti ng a peti ti on because o fa “nove l” CA FA i ssue that had “not been add re sse d i n thi s o r any o therci rcui t”)
. Bu t a s the di scussi on be l ow and the re c en t deci si ons f ro m the Four th an d N i nth Cir cui ts i l l ustr ate , the novel ty of thi s case is su p erfi cial. A nd becau se t h e j urisd ictional i nq uiry ov er lap s w ith th e m er i t s , t h at is, w h et h er th is c as e fa lls u n d er C A FA , th e fa c t t h at ou r ap p ro ac h is te c h n ica lly diff er ent fro m wh at the Ninth a nd Fo urth Ci rcui ts have d o n e i n s i mi l a r c a s e s d o e s n o t p u t u s a t o d d s wi t h th e m. To the c o nt r ar y , we fi nd their d i sc us si o ns o fthe r el at i o nsh i p b etwee n pa r e n s pa tria e ac ti o ns a nd CAFA he l pful and persuasi ve. Befo re getti ng to the reas ons w hy thi s pa rens pa tria e su it is n ot a c las s a c tio n or m as s a c tio n u n d er C A FA , a little4 N o. 11

- 8017 ba ck g r o und o n pa rens pa tria e su i ts wi l l b e he l pful

. The “pare nt o fthe countr y” acti on i s r oo ted i n the En gli sh com m on- l aw co ncept o fthe “r oya l pre ro gat i ve, ” which i ncl ud ed the pow ero fthe ki ng to act“a s gu ar dian of p er so n s u n d er lega l d isa b ilitie s t o a c t fo r th em s e l v es .” H awaiiv. St anda r d Oil Co. , 4 05 U. S
. 2 51 , 2 57( 19 72 )
. I n the U nited States th e “ro y a l p rerogative” an d the king’s pa rens pa tria e p o we r p a s s e d t o th e s t a t e s , a n d t he s c o pe of p a r e n s pat r i aesui ts has e xpand ed bey ond w hat e xi ste d in E n gla n d

. Id. A st ate wil l have st anding to sue a s pare ns pat r i aew he re i t can “artic u la te an i nt erest ap art f r o m the i nt er es ts o fpa rticul arpr i va te pa r ti es ” an d “expres s a quasi

- sov er ei gn i nter est
. ” Alf r e d L
. Sn a pp & So n, Inc
. v. P uerto R ico ex rel. B a rez, 458 U
. S. 592, 607 (1982 ). A st at e, f o r ex am p le, “h as a q u as i-so ve re ign int er es t in th e he al tha nd wel l

-be i ng

— b ot h physi caland eco

n om ic

— ofits r esi dents i n gene ra l
. ” Id. T o de c i de w h et h e r a s ta te ’s in te re st p er ta in s t o “ its res id en ts in ge n er al” as op p os ed to an “id en tifia b le gr o u p o find ivid ual r esi dents, ” a co urt shoul d consi der the di re ct an d ind ire c t e f fec ts of th e a lleg ed inju ry . Id. A n “al l ege d i nj ury to the he al th and w el f ar e o fit s ci ti zens suf fi ces to g ive the S tat e s tandi ng to sue as pare ns pat r i ae[ i f ] the inj u ry is on e th at th e Sta te , if it cou ld , w ou ld likely at t e mptt o a d d r e s s th r o u g h i t s s o v e r e i g n l a wma k i ng p ow er s. ” Id. A lthou gh the A m erican con cep t of p ar e ns pat r i aei s bro ad, i t “do es no t i nv o l ve the S ta te s st epping i n to r epres ent th e i nter est s o fpart i cul arci ti zens w ho, for w h a t ev er rea so n, ca n n otrep re se n t t h em se lve s.” If th at is th e c as e, “ i .e. , i fthe St ate i s o nl y a nom i nal party wi th o u ta r e al i nt er e s to fi t s o wn

— then i t wil l nothave sta nd i ng under the pare ns pat r i aedoctr i ne. ” Id. at 600.N o. 11

- 8017 5 W e have j uri sdic ti on ove r thi s pa rens pa tria e acti on onl y i fi t i s a l so ( oractual l y) a “cl ass act i on” or“m ass ac tio n .” A s d efin e d by C A FA , a cla ss ac tio n is “a n y c ivil ac tio n filed u n d er R u le 2 3 o f th e F e d er al R u les of C ivil Pro cedure orsi m i l ar St ate sta tute orr ule o fj ud i ci alpro ced ure aut horizing an action to be b r ou gh t by 1 or m ore r e pr e s e nt a t i v e p e r sons a s a c l a s s a c t i o n. ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 33 2(d )(1) (B ). A m as s a c t i o n i s “ an y c ivil ac tio n . . . in whi chmone ta r y r el i efc l ai m s o f1 00 o r m o r e per so ns ar e pr o po se d t o b e tr i ed j o i nt l y o n the grou nd tha t th e pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s i n vo lve com m on quest i ons ofl aw orf act, exce pt that juri sdic ti on s hal l exi st onl y o ver th o se pl aint i ff s whos e cl ai m s i n a ma ss ac ti o n s at i sfy the j ur i s di c t i o na l a mou ntr e qu i r e men t s u nd e r [ 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1332 (a)]
. ” 28 U
. S. C
. § 1332(d )( 11)(B)(i ). The dis tr i ct c ourtr eas oned thatthi s s uitcannotbe a cl as s ac ti o n b ec au se i t w as no t fi l ed unde r Rul e 23 o fthe Feder alR u l es ofCi vi l Pro cedure orthe sta te equi val ent, 735 I LC S 5/2- 801, but i s in st ea d a pare ns pat r i aesu it unde r the I AA
. The de f en dan ts mai nt ain tha t be ca us e th e I A A prov id es that “no per son shal l be author i zed to m ai ntai n a c l ass act i on i n any cour t of th i s S tat e f or i nd i re ct purchas er s a sse rt i n g c laim s under thi s Act, with th e so l e ex ce pti o n o fthi s S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y Ge ne r al, who m ay m aintai n an acti on parens patri ae, ” 740 IL C S 10/ 7, the I l l i noi s l egi sl atu re “co nsi ders thi s pare ns pat r i aea uthor ity as a sp ec ies of cla ss ac tio n .” B ut the p hra sing of the I A A i s insu ffici en t to sup p o rt a c on c l u sio n th at th e A tt or n ey G en er al’s su it is re ally a cl ass act i on. A cl ass a cti on m ust be br ought und er6 N o. 11

- 8017 Rul e 23 o r the s ta te e qui val en t. Thi s ca se was b r o ug ht und er the I A A , not Rule 23 or 735 I LC S 5/2- 801. A cl ass ac tio n m u st be br ou gh t b y a “r ep re se n ta tiv e pe rs on .” T h is case was br ought b y the A tto rneyGenera l, notby a r epr es en ta ti ve o fa c l as s. A cl as s ac ti o n must be b r o ug ht as a cla ss act i on . Thi s ca se w as bro ught as a pare ns pat r i ae su i t unde r the I AA , w hi chdo es no t i m po se a ny o fthe f am i l i arRule 2 3 constr ai nts. The I A A does noti m pose, f or exam ple , re quir em ents f or adequacy, num er osi ty, co m m o na l i ty, o r ty pi ca l i ty
. Pr o ce dur al l y , Rul e 23 a nd the I A A ar e e nti re l y di ff er ent b eas ts. Thi s co nc l us i o n i s co ns i st en t wi thr ec en t dec i si o ns f r o m the F o ur tha nd Ni nth Ci r cui ts
. I n C VS Ph arm acy, 64 6 F. 3d at 172, the Four th Ci rcui t hel d that a pare ns pat r i ae su it b ro u gh t b y t h e A tt or n ey G en er al of W es t V irg in ia al l eg i ngv i o l at i o ns o fthe s ta te g en er ic d rugs ta tu te a nd sta te cre ditpro tect i on a ct w as notr em ovabl e a s a cl ass a c t i o n b e c a u s e th e We s t V i r g i n i a l a ws d i d n o ti nc l ud e provi si ons typi calo fa cl ass act i on “ add re ssi ng the adequa cyo fr epr es en ta ti o n, numer o si ty, c o m m o na l i ty, a nd ty p ica lity .” InC him e iInno l ux Corp
. , 20 11 W L 45430 86, th e N i nth Ci r cui t r ea ch ed th e sa m e co nc lus i o n abo ut pare ns pat r i aesui ts bro ught as by the A tto rneyGenera l s o f W ashi n gto n and Cali f or ni a a l l egi ng tha t defendants c o ns pi r e d t o fi x pr i c e s o n pr o du c t s c o nt a i ningLC D pan el s. I n a ffi r m i ngthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r eman d ord er, the N i nth Ci r cui t ex pr es sl y j o i ne d the F o ur thCi rcu i t an d ex pl aine d: “ The que st ion u nd erCAFA i s whethe r the st at e st atut e a ut ho r i ze s th e su i t ‘ as a c l as s ac ti o n. ’ The sta tutes ati ssue here do not

. ” Id. at * 3.N o. 11

- 8017 7 S o , th i s c a s e i s n o ta c l a s s a c t i o n . As a f a l lb a c k, de f en dants ar gue that thi s ca se i s a m ass act i on be cause “m onetar y r el i efcl aim s of 100 orm or e per sons ar e pr opose d to b e t r i e d j o i n t l y o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e p l a i n t i ff s ’ c l a i ms i nv o l v e c o mm o n qu e s t i o ns o fl a w or f a c t
. ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1332 (d)(11)(B)(i ). H ere, how ever, on ly th e Ill inois A ttorney G en er alm ake s a cl ai m f ordam age s ( am ong othe r th in gs ), pr ec ise ly a s a u th or ize d b y th e IA A . B y t h e p lain l an guage o f§ 1332 , thi s s uiti s no t r em ovabl e a s a m ass ac tio n . Ande rs on , 61 0 F
. 3d at 393. M or eov er, a sui t i s not a m as s a c tio n u n d er 28 U .S.C § 13 32 (d )(11 )(B )(ii)(III ) if “a ll of th e c laim s i n t h e a c tio n are as se rt ed on be h alf ofthe gener alpubli c ( and not o n behal fo fi nd i vi du al cl ai m ants orm em ber s o fa pu rpor ted cl ass ) pursuant to a S t a t e s t a t ut e s pe c i fi c a l l y a utho r i z i ngs uc h a c t i o n. ” By the p l a i n l a ngua g e o f tha t pr o v i s i o n, t o o , thi s c a s e i s no t a m as s ac ti o n. A ga inst thi s, the defe nd ants ar gue that i fwe consi der w hat’ s re allyg oin g o n i n thi s s uit, we w i l l se e that Illino is re sid en t p u rc h as er s a re t h e rea l p ar tie s in i nter est and, bui l ding on that pr em i se, co ncl ud e that the 1 00 orm or e plai nti ff s, m i ni m aldi ver si ty, and am ountin- co nt r o ve r syr equi r ement s ar e m et
. To r ea chthe c o ncl usi on that I l l i noi s resi dent purchaser s a re the re al parti es i n i nter est, however, the peti ti oners askus t o separ ately det er m i ne the part i es i n i nter esti n each of th e At t o r n e y G e n e r a l ’ s c l a i ms . T h e y c o n c e d e th a tthe sta te i s the re al party i n i nter est f or the en f or cem entre l ate d c laim s, but they deny thatthe sta te i s the r eal partyi n i nter estf ort h e d am age s cl ai m s a sse rt ed on behal fo fI l l i noi s co nsum er s.8 N o. 11

- 8017 The peti ti oner s fi nd support for th at ki nd o fcl ai m -bycl ai m a ppr o ac h i n Louisi ana ex re l. Ca ldwell v. A ll st ate Ins uranc eCo. , 5 3 6 F
. 3 d 4 1 8 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a nd Wes t Virginia ex rel. M cG raw v. C o m ca st C o rp . , 7 0 5 F
. Sup p. 2 d 4 4 1 ( E. D. Pa
. 2 01 0)
. I n A ll st ate, the Fi fth Ci rcui t a ffi rm ed the denia l ofa m oti on t o re m and a sui t fi led by the S tat e o f Louis i ana “ al ong w i th co unsel fro m a num bero fpri vate l aw fi rm s” aga i nst s eve ra l i nsurance com p an i es f or al l ege d vi ol ati ons ofthe L oui si ana M onopol i es A ct. 53 6 F. 3d at 42 2. A l though the sui t was br ought as a pare ns pat r i aeaction , the defendants ar gued that the s uitwas ac t ua l l y a c l a s s a c t i o n o r mas s a c t i o n un de r CA FA be ca us e Lo ui si an a so ug htt r eb l e damag es f o r Loui si an a in su ra n c e p olic y h o l d er s. Id. at 423. The district cou rt pie rce d the pl eadi ngs t o deter m i ne the r ea l n ature o f L o u i s i a n a ’ s c l a i ms

— an ac tio n th at, th e F ifth C ir c u it note d, Louis i ana did not obj ect to on ap peal

— an d c o ncl ud ed th atr emov alwas a ppr o pr i at e be ca us e Lo ui si an a pol i cyhol ders w ere the r ealpart i es i n i nter est
. Id. at42 5. I n af fi r mi ngthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n, the F i fth Cir cui t e m phasi zed that , “[ i ] n passi ng CA FA , Congr ess em phasi zed thatt h e ter m ‘ cl ass act i on’ sho uld be defi ne d b r o adly to pr ev en t ‘ j ur i sdi ct i o na l g ames m an shi p. ’ ” Id. at42 4. I n C o m ca st, a Pennsyl vani a di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that a pare ns pat r i aean tit ru st a n d c on su m er p ro te c tio n su it bro ught byW estVi rg i ni a was r em ov ab le a s a cl ass acti on under CA FA
. Exam i ni n g W estVi rg i ni a’ s i nter est in the suit to de term ine w he th er CA FA ’s m inim al diversity requ irem en t had been m e t, the d istri ct cou rt fol low ed A ll state ’s cl aim -by-clai m ap p roach and de ter-N o. 11

- 8017 9

m i ned that ther e was m i ni m aldi ver si ty because W est Vir gi ni a co nsum er s were the r ealpart i es i n i nter estf or W estVi rg i ni a’s trebl e dam age s cl ai m . 70 5 F
. S up p. 2d at 44 7, 45 0. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtbe l i e ve d th at cla im -b y-c laim anal ysi s “ i s m ostco nsi ste nt with Congre ss’ s int ent under CA FA to expand f edera l j uri sdic ti on ove r cl ass act i ons. ” Id. I n thi s ca se, the dist ri ct c ourtr ej ecte d the cl ai m -bycl ai m a na l y si s us ed i n A ll st ate a nd C o m ca st
. The di str i ct c ou rtw as in g o o d c om p an y; cla im -b y-c laim an aly sis h as be e n q u es tio n ed by a n u m b er of co u rt s. S e eIn reTF TLC D (Fla t P a nel) A ntitru st Litig ., MD L N o . 18 2 7, 2 0 1 1 WL 56 05 93 , *3 (N .D
. C al. Fe b . 15, 20 11 ); M i s s our iex re l
. Kos t e rv. P ortf olio Recovery Assocs
. , Inc. , 6 8 6 F
. S up p. 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 5- 46 (E .D . M o. 20 10 ); Il lino is v. SDS We s tCorp. , 64 0 F
. S up p. 2d 1047, 1050-53 (C
. D
. I ll

. 2009). I ns tead , the d is t rict court “l oo k[ ed] to the c om pla i nt as a w hol e” and con c lu ded that the Sta te is the re alparty i n i nter est
. W e a gr ee w i th th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s appr o ac h. W he th era s ta te i s th e real p arty in i nt erest in a su it “i s a qu estion to be d eterm i ned fr om the ‘ess enti alnatur e a nd eff ect ofthe proc eedi ng. ’ ” N ucle ar Eng ine er ing Co
. v. Scott, 6 6 0 F
. 2 d 2 41, 25 0 (7 th Ci r. 19 81) ( quoti ng For d M ot orCo. v. D ep’ tof Treasu ry, 3 23 U. S
. 4 59 , 46 4 ( 19 45 ) )
. The c o ur ts i n A ll st ate a nd C o m ca st did not adopt the cl ai m -by- claim approa ch ba se d on any l an g ua g e i n CAFA i ts el f, no r i s th er e an y such l anguage to be f ound. The Fi fth Ci rcui t r ati onal i zed i ts cl ai m -by- cl ai m approa ch as consi ste nt with Congr ess ’ i nt en t to b r o ade n fede r alj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r c l as s ac ti o ns thro ugh CA FA
. But, as J ud ge I l l sto n p ointe d out i n her or der r em anding the pare ns pat r i ae a c t i o n s fi l e d b y t he S ta te Att o r ne y Ge ne r al s o fCa l i f o r ni a an d W ashi ng to n,10 N o. 11

- 8017 j ust be cause CA FA was m ea nt to expand fe deralco urts ’ j uri sdic ti on ove r cl ass acti ons, i t does not f ol l ow t hat “fe d er al c ou r t s a re req u ire d to d ev iat e fro m th e t ra d iti o na l ‘ whol e co m pl aint ’ a na l y si s when ev al ua ting whe the r a S t a t e i s the r e a l pa r t y i n i nt e r e s t i n a pa re ns pa tria e case . ” In re TFT-LC D (F la t P a nel) A ntitru st Litig ., 20 11 W L 56 05 93 , * 3. Se eal s o Firs tBank v
. D JL Pr op. , LL C, 59 8 F. 3d 9 15, 91 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( “I t doe s no t f ol l ow fr om th e fa c t t h at th e 2 00 5 A c t e x p an d s t h e s et of re m ov ab le case s tha t it m us t use ‘defen d an t’ i n a n ovel w ay.”). Re st r ainti s par ti cul ar l y a ppr o pr i at e i n l i gh t o fthe Su p re m e C ou rt ’ s d ire c tiv e t h at rem ov al s ta tu es sh ou ld be “ str i ctl y c onst rued, ” Syn ge nt a Cr op Pr ot e ct i on, Inc . v. H e ns on , 53 7 U.S
. 28 , 32 ( 2002 ) , and the sov er ei gnty concerns thatar i se w hen a c as e b ro u gh t bya sta te i n i ts o wnc o u r t s i s r e mo v e d to fe d e r a l c o u r t
. A s th e S u p r e me Courtha s no te d, “ co ns i der at i o ns o fc o m i tymake us re l uctant to snatch case s w hi ch a St ate has bro u gh t from the c o ur t s o ftha tS t a t e , u nl e s s s o me c l e a r r ul e de man ds i t. ” Franc hi s eTax Bd. v. Co nst r uc t i on Lab or e rs Vac at i on Trust, 4 6 3 U .S. 1, 21 n .22 (19 83 ). Seeals o C VS Ph arm acy, 64 6 F
. 3d at17 8 ( “Whi l e i t i s t r ue tha t W es t Vi r g i ni a vo l unta rily enter ed i nto i ts own cour ts to enf or ce i ts l aw s, it did notvo l untari l y c onse nt to r em ov al ofi ts case to a f edera l court, and a federa l co urt shoul d be m ost r el uct an t to c o m pels uchrem ova l, r es er vi ngi ts c o ns ti tu
tional sup rem acy on ly for w he n rem oval se r v e s an ove rriding fed eral i nt erest.”). The dis tr i ct c ourtco rr ectl y dete rm i ned that thi s ca se i s n o ta c l a s s a c t i o n o r ma s s a c t i o n u n d e r C AF A. WeN o. 11

- 8017 11 ther ef or e l ack j uri sdic ti on ove r an appeal f ro m the di str i ct cour t’ s re m and o rder

. The peti ti on f or l eave to appeal i s D ENI ED .

11- 18- 11