By Brian Wolfman
Agreeing with the Fifth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit has recently held that the provision of the Class Action Fairness Act authorizing permissive appeals of decisions granting or denying motions to remand applies only to class actions removed from state court under CAFA, not to class actions removed on some other basis (e.g.., diversity under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1)). See Saab v. Home Depot, Inc., No. 06-8014 (8th Cir. Nov. 22, 2006). Saab says that the text of 28 U.S.C. 1453, the removal provision added by CAFA, demands that result. The Eighth Circuit should have stopped there. But like many other courts interpreting CAFA, it also relied on the Senate Report on CAFA to buttress its conclusion. That's really too bad. Courts should be treating the Senate Report as worthless because it was issued after CAFA was enacted. One lonely district court has made this point.