Supreme Court to Review Whether Third-Party Defendants May Remove Class Action Counterclaims under CAFAThese are interesting times at the Supreme Court for class certification defendants—and we aren’t talking about the Kavanaugh confirmation process. No, late last week, in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson*, the Supreme Court took the rare step of granting cert to visit an issue on which the circuit courts, to date, have been in agreement: whether class action counterclaims asserted against a third-party counterclaim defendant are removable if those claims meet the removal requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

In terms of traditional diversity and federal question removal, it has been settled law since the Supreme Court’s decision in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets that counterclaims asserted against an original plaintiff are not removable, even if they would have been removable had they been asserted in a separate action against the original plaintiff. In Shamrock Oil, the Supreme Court explained that the use of the phrase “defendant or defendants” in the traditional federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, applied only to original defendants, not to original plaintiffs who become defendants to a counterclaim. Shamrock Oil’s logic was subsequently applied to class action counterclaims asserted by the original defendant against the original plaintiff and to third-party counterclaims asserted against new defendants who were not the original plaintiff, including class action claims. Only in the relatively rare circumstance where a third-party defendant was able to successfully realign the parties did courts allow removal of counterclaims against a third-party defendant (see Hickman v. Alpine Asset Mgmt. Grp., LLC).

With the passage of CAFA, however, there was initially some hope that Shamrock Oil would no longer apply to class action counterclaims that met CAFA’s removability requirements. By enacting CAFA, Congress sought to curb abuse by plaintiffs’ attorneys who had sought to “game the system” by filing large, interstate class actions in favorable state courts where, often, the interests of class counsel were given priority over the interests of both defendants and the class. To accomplish this goal, CAFA broadly enables removal by “any defendant” of any sufficiently large class action ($5 million amount in controversy) that meets minimal diversity. Because the goal of CAFA is to enable more class actions to be removed to federal court, the Supreme Court has made clear that CAFA has no “antiremoval presumption.”

Yet, to date, the hope that CAFA would trump Shamrock Oil has been unfulfilled. Even after CAFA’s enactment, lower courts readily applied Shamrock Oil to bar CAFA removal of class action counterclaims. First, in Progressive West Insurance Co. v. Preciado, the Ninth Circuit held that original plaintiffs could not remove class action counterclaims under CAFA. A year later, in Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, the Fourth Circuit held that third-party counterclaim defendants—i.e., counterclaim defendants who were not the original plaintiff—also could not remove class counterclaims under CAFA. The only other circuits to address the issue—the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits—have all concurred with the Fourth, and twice SCOTUS has denied cert. Therefore, it has been considered settled law that no counterclaim defendant, whether or not an original plaintiff, may remove a class action counterclaim under CAFA.

But with the Supreme Court’s grant of cert in Home Depot despite the complete absence of a circuit split, there is reason to believe that this “settled” law may be about to change. In Home Depot, Citibank filed a collection action against a consumer in state court. In response, the consumer filed class action counterclaims against original plaintiff Citibank, as well as additional third-party defendants Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems, Inc. (CWS), neither of which had been a party to the original collection action. Thereafter, Citibank dismissed its claim, and Home Depot removed the case to federal court, arguing that because it had never been anything but a defendant, it was entitled to remove under CAFA, given that CAFA allows “any defendant” to remove applicable class actions. Post-removal, the original defendant then dismissed his counterclaim against Citibank, leaving Home Depot and CWS as the only defendants in the case. Yet, in affirming the district court’s remand to state court, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with Home Depot’s argument that CAFA entitles third-party defendants who have never been plaintiffs to remove class counterclaims, explaining that under Fourth Circuit precedent and the unanimous precedent of other circuits, counterclaims are not removable, even under CAFA and even when the counterclaim defendant was not an original plaintiff.

Despite the unanimity among the circuits, the Supreme Court has chosen to take up this issue. Moreover, in granting cert, the Supreme Court made clear that it will address not only the question specifically presented in Home Depot—whether CAFA allows a third-party counterclaim defendant who is not an original defendant to remove a class action counterclaim—but also the broader question of whether such a third-party counterclaim defendant may remove any counterclaim, whether or not brought on behalf of a class.

Reading the tea leaves, the Supreme Court’s grant of cert despite circuit agreement seems to strongly suggest that the Supreme Court disagrees with—and will overturn—settled law. How things ultimately shakeout will depend upon a number of factors, not the least of which is who may ultimately end up being confirmed to fill Justice Kennedy’s vacated seat on the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it seems prudent for any counterclaim defendants (whether original plaintiffs or third-party defendants) to consider removing any qualifying class counterclaims (and class third-party claims) under CAFA. Only by doing so may that defendant preserve the issue, because even if the Supreme Court ultimately decides that such claims are removable, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would revive time periods for removal that have already lapsed or that may lapse pending its decision. Such removing counterclaim and third-party claim defendants should also consider seeking to stay any motion to remand pending a ruling in Home Depot.

We will continue to monitor this case.

*Bradley provided input on an amicus brief submitted by the Defense Research Institute in support of Home Depot’s petition for cert. Larry Ebner of Capital Appellate Advocacy PLLC was principal draftsman of that brief.

Court Strikes Non-Forum Class Members’ Claims in TCPA Class Action under <i>Bristol-Myers Squibb</i>We have been closely watching how courts have applied the Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb decision in the class action context, and the early results are mixed. But the Northern District of Illinois made a big step in the right direction when it decided America’s Health and Resource Center, Ltd. v. Promologics, Inc. The court granted the defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations because (among other things) the court lacked personal jurisdiction over non-Illinois members of the alleged class.

Promologics is a TCPA case involving alleged junk faxes. While the case’s discussion is not clear on where the allegedly improper faxes originated, they did not come from Illinois. Instead, they were sent to recipients both inside and outside of Illinois.

In response to the defendants’ B-MS jurisdictional objection, the plaintiffs argued that B-MS does not apply to class actions, and in the alternative, that defendants’ challenge was untimely.

The court dealt swiftly and decisively with the threshold question applying Bristol-Myers Squibb to class actions. Grabbing hold of the Supreme Court’s statement that “due process requires ‘a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue,’” the court expressed its “belief that Bristol-Myers Squibb applies in equal measure to class actions.” It also quoted the Eastern District of New York’s pithy line from In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation: “The Constitutional requirements of due process do[ ] not wax and wane when the complaint is individual or on behalf of a class.”

The court had little trouble applying B-MS to this class action, but wrestled more with the question of timeliness—and the defendants almost certainly experienced a range of emotions as they read the court’s opinion. As we all know from Civil Procedure 101, defendants must raise personal jurisdiction challenges in their first responsive pleading or else the objection is waived.  The Promologics defendants did not do so because Bristol-Myers Squibb had not then been decided. After that opinion came down, they argued that it changed the law enough to justify giving them a chance to raise it. The court disagreed. It concluded that B-MS merely clarified the law about personal jurisdiction, but did not so fundamentally change the law as to excuse the defendants’ failure to raise a timely objection. “Without an intervening change in the law and without an earlier, controlling authority blockading such efforts, Defendants’ failure to mount a timely challenge to personal jurisdiction constitutes forfeiture of that challenge.”

At this point, things look pretty bleak, but the court “excuse[d] the forfeiture” on its own initiative by noting that courts have the independent power to apply the proper governing law.  Thus, regardless of who raised what issues when, the court found that Bristol-Myers Squibb was the controlling law, and applied it accordingly.

This case helps defendants in three important ways:

First, particularly while we wait for the first appellate court to weigh in on the issue, the more district courts that apply B-MS to class actions the better. Appellate courts will certainly do more than count district court opinions when they decide whether to apply B-MS in the class context, but they will still count cases. And in the task of persuading the first appellate court or another district court, every good case makes the string cite longer and adds another helpful quote to the arsenal available to defendants.

Second, though the passage of time means that fewer pre-B-MS cases are percolating through the system, the court’s willingness to apply B-MS in the face of a finding of forfeiture reminds companies that they may be able to press this argument even if their early case pleadings did not raise it.

Third, note carefully that the court found that B-MS did not radically change the law, a view that defendants should adopt. Instead of treating B-MS as a landmark case, consider that it merely follows on and clarifies personal jurisdiction law going all the way back to International Shoe. Relying on the case in this way puts defendants on the strongest footing to defeat the argument that B-MS does not apply in class actions. There is no special rule for specific personal jurisdiction in class actions or mass actions—there is just one rule for all cases. That is the true rule of B-MS.

Irrevocable Consent Comes to the Eleventh Circuit: Two District Courts Apply Reyes to Boot TCPA CasesA critical question in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases is whether the plaintiff gave consent to receive communications from the defendant, and whether that consent had been revoked by the time of the communication. Given the problems with the TCPA in general, you would probably not be surprised to learn that the TCPA does not specify how a person can revoke consent. The TCPA lawsuit industry wants a world where a person can give formal consent to receive communications and then revoke it on a whim. This “anything goes” revocation standard can expose companies to sudden and sizable liability.

Thankfully, the Second Circuit held in Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services that a person who gives consent as part of a bargained-for exchange cannot unilaterally revoke it. Where a consumer consented as part of the consideration for the contract, the company can continue to rely on that consent.

Irrevocable consent under Reyes is anathema to TCPA cases because most companies are––or soon will be––including appropriate consent language in their agreements with their customers.

The big question facing companies now is whether Reyes will expand beyond the Second Circuit. While some early trends were bad, we are happy to report that two district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have relied on Reyes to grant summary judgment in TCPA cases.

The first of these two cases is Few v. Receivable Performance Management, in which the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment in a single-plaintiff case. In Ms. Few contract with her satellite TV provider, she agreed that the provider and any debt collector acting on the provider’s behalf could contact Ms. Few at a particular phone number. A debt collector then called Ms. Few to recover an alleged debt, and Ms. Few said that she did not wish to receive calls. The debt collector nevertheless called or texted more than 180 times.

No dice, ruled the district court. In the absence of controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court found Reyes persuasive and applied the bargained-for exchange rule: “because she offered that consent as part of a bargained-for exchange and not merely gratuitously, she was unable to unilaterally revoke that consent.”

The Middle District of Florida––a notoriously dangerous TCPA jurisdiction for defendants––reached a similar result in Medley v. Dish Network, LLC. The plaintiff, Ms. Medley, complained that her lawyer had effectively revoked her consent to be contacted by Dish, which responded with a Reyes argument. The court agreed with Dish, and cited the Northern District of Alabama’s Few case with approval. It also helpfully distinguished several cases that had permitted unilateral consent revocation.

These cases are good news for companies facing TCPA liability in the Eleventh Circuit. While the appeals court has recognized federal common law governs issues of giving and revoking consent, it has not yet addressed Reyes and the effect of a bargained-for exchange. It is hoped that Few and Medley will lead a trend toward further adoption of Reyes.

The takeaway in litigation is to press the Reyes issue. Some courts have reached unfavorable conclusions when addressing consent and revocation in the abstract, but courts have been more receptive to defendants that can point to the particular inequity of a plaintiff getting the benefits of consent in a contract and then repudiating the contract to obtain a TCPA windfall.

Specific to the class-action context, the adoption of Reyes affords multiple chances to defeat class claims. Early summary judgment practice on consent and revocation can put putative class representatives on the defensive, and potentially complicate plaintiff’s efforts to show adequacy, commonality and typicality. Putative class representatives may also have to resort to individualized facts to show why they should be allowed to back out of the deal that included their consent, potentially putting plaintiffs on the horns of a dilemma: Save the class and risk losing the whole case, or save the case and risk losing the class-action payday.

We’ll close with a practical point: Companies should be studying their consumer-facing agreements to determine whether a consumer’s consent to receive telephone communications is––or can be reconfigured to be––part of a bargained-for exchange. Companies can help manage their TCPA liability by crafting their customer agreements appropriately as to arbitration (including a non-severable class action waiver), indemnity, and the bargained-for nature of consent. These preventive measures, deployed effectively, can both dissuade the prowling packs of TCPA lawyers from bringing a claim in the first place, and also strengthen the company’s defense if litigation is filed.