Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Justine Robinson filed a proposed class action in Humboldt County Superior Court alleging that Snap-On installed third-party browser trackers on visitors to its website. The complaint asserted claims under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California law.
Snap-On removed the action based on federal-question jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. After the district court questioned whether the complaint alleged a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing, Snap-On conceded that federal standing was absent but asked the court to dismiss the case instead of returning it to state court.
The Court’s Holding
The court remanded the action. Under 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c), a removed case must be returned to state court whenever the federal court determines before final judgment that subject-matter jurisdiction is missing. The statute does not ordinarily give a district court discretion to dismiss instead.
The court recognized a narrow futility exception, but explained that dismissal is permissible only when it is absolutely certain the state court would dismiss after remand. Snap-On did not make that showing. Because state standing rules need not mirror Article III and federal jurisdiction was absent, the court followed the statutory command and sent the case back to Humboldt County Superior Court.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant that removes a case bears the risk that a federal standing defect will require remand rather than dismissal.
- Section 1447(c) generally makes remand mandatory once subject-matter jurisdiction is found lacking.
- The futility exception requires absolute certainty that the state court will dismiss, not merely a strong defense on the merits.
- Article III standing limits federal courts but does not necessarily determine whether a claim may proceed in California court.
Why It Matters
The ruling matters to privacy and class-action litigators because removal does not provide a reliable route to a federal dismissal when the alleged injury is too abstract for Article III. A removing defendant may instead return the plaintiff to the forum originally selected.
Counsel evaluating removal should analyze standing alongside CAFA and federal-question jurisdiction. A federal claim on the face of a complaint does not eliminate the constitutional requirement of a concrete injury.