Dalton, et al. v. Walgreen Co., No. 13-2047 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Missouri state court against Walgreens seeking damages related to Walgreens' alleged practice of coding its web pages to cause tracking codes or "flash cookies" to be downloaded onto plaintiffs' computers. Walgreens filed its notice of removal nearly one year after plaintiffs initially filed the putative class action. The court declined to adopt Walgreens' reading of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), holding that discovery responses were not "other paper" under section 1446(b)(3) as a matter of law. Therefore, Walgreens had no statutory basis to remove the case at this juncture. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to state court and declined to reach Walgreens' remaining arguments.
Court Description: Civil Case - Class Action Fairness Act. District court's remand of the case to state court is affirmed, as Walgreen's removal was untimely. Discovery responses received in a separate case against a different defendant involving only one of the plaintiffs in this case are not "other paper" under 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(3) as a matter of law. Thus, Walgreens had no stautory basis to remove this case. [ July 11, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2047 ___________________________ Christiane Dalton; William Aaron, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Walgreen Company lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: June 27, 2013 Filed: July 12, 2013 ____________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christiane Dalton and William Aaron, Jr., ( the Plaintiffs ) filed this putative class action against Walgreen Company ( Walgreens ) in Missouri state court on April 5, 2012, seeking damages relating to Walgreens s alleged practice of coding its web pages to cause tracking codes or flash cookies to be downloaded onto the Plaintiffs computers. Under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent at the time of filing, the case was not removable to federal court because the Plaintiffs and their counsel stipulated that the amount in controversy did not meet the threshold triggering federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ( CAFA ). See Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., 666 F.3d 1069, 1072 (8th Cir. 2012), abrogated by Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 1348-51 (2013). The Supreme Court later abrogated Rolwing, holding that such stipulations cannot be used to defeat federal jurisdiction under CAFA. See Knowles, 133 S. Ct. at 1348-51. Federal law specifies that a defendant seeking removal must file a notice of removal . . . within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading . . . . 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Furthermore, if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). In short, a defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days of one of the statute s triggering events. Walgreens filed its notice of removal on March 29, 2013, nearly one year after the Plaintiffs initially filed the putative class action. Thus, Walgreens s notice of removal was timely only if it was filed within 30 days of Walgreens s receipt of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is . . . removable. See id. The parties agree that issuance of Knowles did not trigger the start of a 30-day period under section 1446(b)(3). See Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that a decision in a separate case with different parties is not an order or other paper under section 1446(b)). Walgreens based its notice of removal on the contention that its counsels receipt of written discovery responses from Dalton on February 28, 2013, constituted -2- receipt of other papers and consequently began a new 30-day period within which Walgreens could file a notice of removal. Dalton submitted these discovery responses in a separate putative class action involving the same or similar claims against a different defendant who happens to be represented by the same counsel as Walgreens. Dalton is the only named plaintiff in that separate case. On April 16, 2013, the district court1 sua sponte entered an order of remand, concluding that the amount in controversy could not be proven by reference to discovery responses in another case. Walgreens timely filed a petition to appeal. We granted that petition on May 13, 2013, and we decide the appeal on an expedited basis pursuant to the 60day time limitation set by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(2). We decline to adopt Walgreens s expansive reading of section 1446(b)(3) under the specific facts of this case. Walgreens s stated basis for removal was receipt of discovery responses in a separate case against a different defendant involving only one of the two Plaintiffs in this case. Because we hold that these responses were not other paper under section 1446(b)(3) as a matter of law, Walgreens had no statutory basis to remove the case at this juncture.2 Thus, using our power to affirm the district court on any basis in the record, see Interstate Bakeries Corp. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 539, 542 (8th Cir. 2012), we affirm the district court s order remanding the 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 It remains to be seen whether this case may become removable in the future due to Walgreens s receipt of discovery responses in this case or of other documents specified in section 1446(b)(3). See § 1446(b)(3); cf. Hurst v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 13-1757, 2013 WL 2363083, at *2 (8th Cir. May 31, 2013) (unpublished per curiam) ( On remand, should punitive damages [sufficient to trigger federal jurisdiction under CAFA] find their way into the case for consideration by the jury (whether by formal amendment to the pleadings or otherwise), immediate removal would be timely and almost certainly proper. ). -3- case to state court. In light of this disposition, we decline to reach Walgreens s remaining arguments. ______________________________ -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
