Background
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit in Ohio state court over six years ago. The defendant removed the case to federal court within the statutory thirty-day window, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act. After the district court denied class certification, it remanded the case to state court. Plaintiffs later renewed their motion for class certification in state court, prompting the defendant to attempt a second removal to federal court. The district court denied the plaintiffs motion to remand, equitably tolling the removal deadline due to the prior remand order.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act is determined at the time the action is commenced. Once the thirty-day removal clock begins, it cannot be reset by later developments such as a motion for class certification. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Enbridge Energy, which held that the statutory removal deadline is strict and mandatory. The district court lacked authority to create equitable exceptions to the removal timeline. Although the district court erred in remanding the case initially, the defendant failed to challenge that order timely and cannot now use equitable tolling to cure its untimely second removal.
The removal clock is unforgiving and cannot be equitably tolled.
Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel ex rel. Michigan, 146 S. Ct. 1074, 1084 (2026)
What it means going forward
Defendants must strictly adhere to the thirty-day removal deadline and cannot rely on equitable tolling to cure untimely filings, even when prior court orders create confusion about jurisdiction.