Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, No. 14-55916 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit in state court against Innoventions, alleging several causes of action, including four class claims. The gravamen of her complaint was that Innoventions had marketed a product called DiabeStevia with “grossly misleading and exaggerated claims” concerning its use and effectiveness. Innoventions removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4. The district court subsequently dismissed the case. The court held that the rule that a removed case in which the plaintiff lacks Article III standing must be remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) applies as well to a case removed pursuant to CAFA as to any other type of removed case. The court rejected Innoventions' three arguments to the contrary. Finally, the court could not say with “absolute certainty” that remand would be futile. Therefore, the district court should have remanded this case to state court pursuant to section 1447(c). The court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Remand. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action, based on lack of jurisdiction, and remanded to the district court for the case to be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The panel held that the district court upon determining that it lacked jurisdiction, should have remanded the case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Specifically, the panel held that the rule – that a removed case in which the plaintiff lacks Article III standing must be remanded to state court under § 1447(c) – applies as well to a case removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act as to any other type of removed case. The panel rejected appellee’s arguments that § 1447(c) should not apply to this case. Finally, the panel held that it could not say with “absolute certainty” that remand would be futile, therefore, the district court should have remanded to state court pursuant to § 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.