United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DANA NESSEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, ex rel. The People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff,
AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P., AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., RURAL GAS & APPLIANCE, SCHULTZ BOTTLE GAS, Defendants.
ORDER REMANDING TO STATE COURT
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand to State
Court. ECF No. 4.
October 2016, Plaintiff Bill Schuette, the Attorney General of the
State of Michigan (“AG”), undertook an
investigation of Defendants’ (“Amerigas”)
propane sales in Michigan. Complaint, ECF No. 1-2,
PageID.15–16. Upon the conclusion of the investigation,
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the 38th
Judicial Circuit in Monroe County, Michigan (“State
Court”). See ECF No. 1-2. The Complaint
alleges that Defendants’ pricing practices violated
several aspects of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act,
Mich. Comp. Laws 445.901 et seq.
(“MCPA”). The Complaint states:
The Attorney General is authorized to bring this action under
MCL 445.905 and MCL 445.910. The Attorney General may obtain
injunctive relief, actual damages, and other appropriate
relief under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL
445.901 et seq. And the Attorney General may bring a
parens patriae action to pursue tort and individual
claims under MCL 445.911 to vindicate consumer rights.
ECF No. 1-2, PageID.13–14. On September 21, 2018,
Plaintiff filed in State Court a “Consolidated Motion
for Class Certification and Supporting Brief.” ECF No.
October 12, 2018, pursuant to a notice by Defendants, the
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. ECF No. 1. Defendants assert
that federal jurisdiction over this matter is proper under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”),
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). ECF No. 1, PageID.3.
opposes removal, contending that the action is not a
“class action” as defined under CAFA and was
improperly removed to this Court. Plaintiff moves to remand
the case back to State Court. ECF No. 4.
reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is
GRANTED, and the case is hereby remanded to
the Circuit Court for the 38th Judicial Circuit in Monroe
Removability Under CAFA
contend that the action is removable under CAFA because:
(a) Plaintiff in the State Court Action has sought to certify
a putative class action under Michigan law; (b) at least one
member of the putative class is a citizen of a different
state than Defendants; (c) the number of class members
alleged by plaintiff in the aggregate is larger than 100; and