Home Depot USA v. Jackson
Issue: Class Actions
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Lower Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Whether an original defendant to a class-action claim can remove the class action if it otherwise satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") when the class action was originally asserted as a counterclaim against the co-defendant.
The Retail Litigation Center filed an amici brief, joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in support of the petition for certiorari. The brief provides the Court with a comprehensive analysis of Congress’ intent in enacting CAFA and explains that leaving the Fourth Circuit’s decision unchanged will erode CAFA safeguards, resulting in an increase of abusive class action litigation.
The RLC's second brief argues that counterclaim defendants should be entitled to CAFA's protections just as original defendants are and for the same statutory and policy reasons that Congress enacted CAFA in the first place. Lower courts have been misreading the Supreme Court's Shamrock Oil decision – which predates CAFA by decades – in a way that has allowed the plaintiffs bar to make an end run around CAFA and keep class actions in state court when Congress expressly decided otherwise.
Case Outcome: TBD
Procedural History & Case Documents
- Petition for Certiorari, April 2018