Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 14-35943 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed this class action lawsuit in Washington state court against Nationstar Mortgage LLC, alleging several causes of action, including violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationstar filed a notice of removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand the proceeding to state court, arguing that its removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). The district court granted the motion and awarded Plaintiff attorney fees and costs because it found that Nationstar did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removal. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) Nationstar’s removal under CAFA was timely, and therefore, the action properly belonged in federal court; and (2) the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees that was premised on improper removal must be reversed.
Court Description: Class Action Fairness Act / Removal. The panel reversed the district court’s order remanding the class action proceeding to state court on the basis that the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC removed the case within thirty days of ascertaining removability under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), but more than two years after the case became removable on federal question grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The panel held that a case becomes removable for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 when the CAFA ground for removal is first disclosed. The panel held that a defendant may remove a case from state court within thirty days of ascertaining that the action is removable under CAFA, even if an earlier pleading, document, motion, order, or other paper revealed an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction. The panel concluded that Nationstar’s removal under CAFA was JORDAN V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE 3 timely, and that the action therefore properly belonged in federal court. Finally, because the removal under CAFA was timely, the panel reversed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff that was premised on improper removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
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.