Whether a state court's proposal to try jointly the claims of more than 100 plaintiffs can qualify for 'mass action' removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)

QUESTION PRESENTED This Petition presents an important, unsettled, and recurring question concerning the “mass action” provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Under CAFA, a removable “mass action” is a minimally diverse civil action in which the monetary claims of 100 or more persons are “proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11). The courts of appeals are divided as to whether a swa sponte proposal by a state court—as opposed to a proposal by plaintiffs—can trigger mass action removal. Here, Pfizer removed these cases involving more than 4,200 products liability plaintiffs following a California state court’s “Request” to coordinate them all before a single trial judge. But the district court remanded the litigation to state court based on its view that a state court’s proposal for joint trial cannot trigger removal under CAFA, and the Ninth Circuit declined to correct the district court’s misreading of the statute. The question presented is whether a state court’s proposal to try jointly the claims of more than 100 plaintiffs can qualify for “mass action” removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11).