Opinion ID: 6345126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Potential Appellate Jurisdiction

Text: We have consistently held that § 1453(c)(1) does not grant us jurisdiction to consider non-CAFA-related grounds for removal when reviewing a remand order. See, e.g., City of Walker v. Louisiana ex rel Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 877 F.3d 563, 566–67 (5th Cir. 2017); Patterson v. Dean Morris, L.L.P., 448 F.3d 736, 739 (5th Cir. 2006); Perritt v. Westlake Vinyls Co., L.P., 562 F. App’x 228, 231 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (“[W]e do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision to remand for lack of diversity jurisdiction, but we may review its decision to remand for lack of CAFA jurisdiction.” (quotation omitted)). at 793. Despite the similarities between the cases, we held that the plaintiffs’ evidence in Preston II—a list of addresses from class members’ prior medical records—was insufficient to prove citizenship and accordingly held that CAFA’s exceptions did not apply. Id. at 798–801. In reaching that conclusion, we noted that the petition in that case was filed one year after Hurricane Katrina, and, because of the mass relocation that took place postKatrina, the court was unable to presume that class members had maintained their Louisiana domiciles. Id. at 799–802. Though Plaintiffs’ petition here indicates that many individuals affected by the power outages “evacuate[d]” to other states, there are no facts alleged or other evidence in the record indicating that a Katrina-style “mass relocation” occurred after Hurricane Ida. Katrina caused thousands of deaths and massive destruction, whereas Ida, while horrible, did not have that same result. In any event, to the contrary, the survey—though informal—supports an inference that those affected by Hurricane Ida power outages have maintained Louisiana domiciles, even if they were temporarily residing elsewhere until their power returned. 7 Case: 22-30177 Document: 00516336407 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 No. 22-30177 Nevertheless, Entergy urges us to review its non-CAFA-related jurisdictional assertions, arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021), overrules our prior precedent. We disagree and, accordingly, must follow our prior precedent. In BP, the Supreme Court considered whether § 1447(d)—which authorizes appeal of “an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 [the federal officer removal statute] or 1443 [the civil rights removal statute]”—extends appellate review to the entire remand order or limits it to the portions of the remand order related to §§ 1442 and 1443. 141 S. Ct. at 1536. The Court concluded that when a district court’s remand order rejects multiple grounds for removal, § 1447(d) “authorizes a court of appeals to review each and every one of them” because “the statute allows courts of appeals to examine the whole of a district court’s ‘order,’ not just some of its parts or pieces.” Id. at 1538. Entergy seizes on this reasoning. Because CAFA also permits appeal from “an order,” Entergy argues, BP’s holding on § 1447(d) necessarily extends to § 1453(c)(1) and grants us jurisdiction to review all the issues decided in the remand order. Some of our sister circuits read § 1453(c)(1) this way, see, e.g., Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 451–52 (7th Cir. 2005), but we do not think BP—which concerned a statute not at issue here and did not refer to § 1453(c)(1) even in passing—allows us to depart from our precedent. Under the well-settled rule of orderliness, “three-judge panels” must “abide by a prior Fifth Circuit decision until the decision is overruled, expressly or implicitly, by either the United States Supreme Court or by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc.” Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 274 F.3d 881, 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). “[Our] precedent is implicitly overruled if a subsequent Supreme Court opinion establishes a rule of law inconsistent with that precedent.” Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. 8 Case: 22-30177 Document: 00516336407 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 No. 22-30177 Servs., 911 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But that decision must be “unequivocal[].” Id. We conclude that § 1447(d) is sufficiently distinct from § 1453(c)(1) and therefore that BP has not unequivocally overruled our precedent or established a law inconsistent with it. We begin with the text. Though § 1453(c)(1) does not expressly limit appellate review to issues solely related to CAFA, it is textually distinct from § 1447(d). Unlike § 1447(d) as to which the usual appeal timing implicitly applies, § 1453(c) sets an express and short ten-day time limit on a party requesting permission to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). If the permission is granted (which is discretionary in the appeals court), it also requires appellate courts to accelerate their determination of such appeals. See id. § 1453(c)(2) (requiring courts of appeals to render a judgment no later than sixty days after the appeal is filed); see also Patterson v. Dean Morris, L.L.P., 444 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2006) (appeal is deemed filed once permission is granted: “[I]t is the order granting leave to appeal that triggers the sixty-day period for a court of appeals to enter judgment.”). These very short and narrow time limits have practical implications—to exercise our discretion to even hear CAFA-related remand appeals, we “must weigh the time taken from earlier-filed appeals to tend to the CAFA appeal.” Alvarez v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 585 F.3d 890, 894 (5th Cir. 2009). Compare these CAFAspecific efficiency considerations with § 1447(d). In BP, the Court noted that inefficiency in the context of § 1447(d) was a mere policy concern that could not “overcome a clear statutory directive.” 141 S. Ct. at 1542 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But in the case of § 1453(c), a swift and efficient disposition is the statutory directive and, as such, is memorialized in its text. Taking additional time to review non-CAFA-related claims under § 1453(c) would undoubtedly undermine that directive. 9 Case: 22-30177 Document: 00516336407 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 No. 22-30177 Moreover, we note that review under § 1447(d) is mandatory, while, as explained above, review under § 1453(c)(1) is permissive. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (“An order remanding a case . . . pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” (emphasis added)), with id. § 1453(c)(1) (“[A] court of appeals may accept an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand a class action . . . .” (emphasis added)). This textual difference likely stems from the unique purpose of § 1453(c), which was enacted to help generate appellate law interpreting CAFA, but only if that could be done efficiently. See S. REP. NO. 109-14, at 49 (2005) (“The purpose of this provision is to develop a body of appellate law interpreting the legislation without unduly delaying the litigation of class actions.”). That unique purpose further supports our conclusion that BP’s holding does not extend to remand orders under § 1453(c)(1) and has not unequivocally overruled our precedent interpreting that statute. See Gahagan, 911 F.3d at 302. For the reasons above, we conclude that BP did not overrule our prior precedent, so we are required to continue following the rule “that our jurisdiction to review a CAFA remand order stops at the edge of the CAFA portion of the order.” City of Walker, 877 F.3d at 567. Thus, we dismiss that portion of the appeal. As to the CAFA portion of the district court’s remand order here, we agree that the local controversy and home state exceptions bar federal jurisdiction, so we affirm that portion. AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part. 10