Ninth Circuit Interprets Language Setting Time For Appeal in CAFA

Per BNA's U.S. Law Week:

The Class Action Fairness Act does not mean what it says with respect to appeals from orders granting or denying motions for remand of class actions to state court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held Jan. 26 in a per curiam order (Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309, AFL-CIO v. Laidlaw Transit Services Inc., 9th Cir., No. 05-56567, 1/26/06).

In 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1), CAFA provides that an appeals court "may accept an appeal" from an order granting or denying a remand "if application is made to the court of appeals not less than 7 days after entry of the order." The court concluded that the provision contemplates an application for a discretionary appeal governed by Fed.R.App.P. 5(a), which must be filed not more than seven days after entry of the order. Because CAFA's use of the term "less" to establish a waiting period for filing an application "is entirely illogical," the court boldly inserted "a word of the exact opposite meaning" into the statute.

U.S. Law Week, Volume 74 Number 29 Tuesday, February 7, 2006, Page 1454, ISSN 1522-4317.

The full article on the case is available to BNA subscribers here. A PDF copy of the Ninth Circuit's opinion can be obtained by here.