Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson (17-1471)

argument 17-1471

Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson

Supreme Court of the United States 54 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is Home Depot’s role in the case and why does it matter?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case seventeen fourteen seventy one, Home Depot versus Jackson. Mr Barnett?

Amy Coney Barrett 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, may it please the Court. Home Depot is a defendant under any reasonable construction of that term. And in fact that is our only role in this case we are just to defend it. Home Depot is not a counterclaim defendant. We didn't sue anyone in this case. Home Depot is not a third party defendant. We're not being sued for indemnity or contribution. Home Depot is simply a defendant, the original defendant, to a consumer fraud class action filed in state court by Mr Jackson. As such, we're within the plain terms of Section fourteen forty one A, are entitled to remove this class action under the Class Action Fairness Act. to federal court and the Fourth Circuit aired in holding otherwise. Because Home Depot is simply a defendant, this court's holding in Shermack Oil does not govern.

Amy Coney Barrett 0:55

As the court is aware, Shamrack Oil is an original plaintiff case, not an original defendant case. The lower courts have erred in extending the holding of Shamrock Oil to say that basically you have to be an original defendant to be able to remove.

Elena Kagan 1:16

Generally, all defendants have to agree to removal. and with some other limitations. If you're now an additional defendant to the action, Why do you why don't you need Jackson's approval to remove? And he's not approving because he's opposing

Amy Coney Barrett 1:34

I don't expect he would, Your Honor, that's correct. Um under fourteen forty one A and traditional diversity jurisdiction thirteen thirty two A, you're correct that all defendants have to remove as a part of the procedure under fourteen forty six. Here though, in Shamrock Oil, the court went through the history of removal and diversity Understood that it was very important to the framers that diversity jurisdiction was in the original Constitution, Article three, Section Two. Removal was in the original uh Judiciary Act of seventeen eighty nine, so it was important to the framers that each shot have one shot at at a at a federal forum. But that's not true.

Elena Kagan 2:08

All defendants don't have a shot at removal. Only if everybody agrees. in an original action All defendants have to agree to removal, correct? So not every defendant individually has a right to removal.

Amy Coney Barrett 2:27

Um Your Honor, in Shermock Oil the Court looked at that history, looked at basically Congress has said plaintiffs can't remove. We know that. Originally the right to removal was given to defendants only for about twenty years after the Civil War. It was given to both plaintiffs and defendants. And then in eighteen eighty seven again it was given back to only defendants. So this court in Shermack Oil.

Elena Kagan 2:50

doesn't guarantee the power to every defendant to remove.

Amy Coney Barrett 2:53

So in Chairmark Oil the Court, Your Honor, held because of this binary selection that Congress has made, you're either a plaintiff or a defendant. If you're the plaintiff, then you're not the defendant.

Elena Kagan 3:03

If your theory is this right of removal, how about an involuntary plaintiff? Under Federal Rule nineteen eighty two, some people can be made involuntary plaintiffs. Do they have a right to remove?

Amy Coney Barrett 3:16

Uh no, Your Honor. The right to removal is given to the defendant or the defendants. They never had a

Elena Kagan 3:20

chance they never had the chance to pick a forum. That's the main support for your theory,

Amy Coney Barrett 3:27

which

Elena Kagan 3:27

is that everybody should have one opportunity to choose Their forum, correct?

Amy Coney Barrett 3:33

A defendant, the defendant or the defendant is entitled to remove under 1441A. In Shamrock Oil, this court held because the original plaintiff is not solely the defendant, they don't have that right. Therefore also you wouldn't need their right to consent to removal by other defendants. In the same scenario, the original defendant that files an additional claim, bringing in a new party defendant, they're a plaintiff at that point. This court in merchant heats and lights said you step into the role of the plaintiff.

Sonia Sotomayor 3:56

I understand your answer to Justice uh Sotomayor. It's that counterclaim defendants count as defendants for purposes of fourteen forty-one, uh, but plaintiffs don't, uh, even though they uh counterclaim defend plaintiffs don't, even though they're the original defendant.