The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), designed to facilitate the removal of state court class actions to federal court, has spawned thousands of cases interpreting its myriad provisions. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(d) (CAFA jurisdiction over class actions exists if minimal diversity exists and a $5 million amount in controversy is satisfied); 28 U.S.C.
1453 (establishing several special rules for the removal of CAFA class actions). Many of the interpretive problems were anticipated; others were not. Perhaps one of the most important ones involves whether and when CAFA jurisdiction exists over cases brought by state attorneys general. State attorneys general frequently pursue litigation on behalf of their citizens in state courts. A number of federal courts have considered whether these cases can be removed under CAFA, either as class actions or as mass actions. A split in the circuits has emerged on the issue, with the U.S. courts of appeal for the 5th and 4th circuits, and a handful of lower federal courts, taking very different approaches.
