PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel.
DARRELL V. MCGRAW, JR.,
Attorney General,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CVS PHARMACY, INCORPORATED, a
Rhode Island Corporation; KMART
HOLDING CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; THE KROGER No. 11-1251
COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation;
WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED,
a Delaware Corporation;
WALGREEN COMPANY, an Illinois
Corporation; TARGET STORES
INCORPORATED, a Minnesota
Corporation,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.
(2:09-cv-01000)
Argued: March 22, 2011
Decided: May 20, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and
Ronald Lee GILMAN, Senior Circuit Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
sitting by designation.
2 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the
majority opinion, in which Judge Davis joined. Senior Judge
Gilman wrote a dissenting opinion.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: David B. Goroff, FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP,
Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants. John William Barrett, BAI-
LEY & GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Pamela C. Deem, Bryant J. Spann,
ALLEN GUTHRIE & THOMAS PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, Robert H. Griffith, Jonathan W. Garlough, FOLEY
& LARDNER, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for CVS Pharmacy,
Incorporated; Alexander Macia, SPILMAN, THOMAS AND
BATTLE PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Tina M. Tabac-
chi, Brian J. Murray, Dennis Murashko, JONES DAY, Chi-
cago, Illinois, for Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated; Thomas R.
Goodwin, Susan C. Wittemeier, Johnny M. Knisely II,
GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia,
Jill M. Wheaton, Todd G. Gattoni, DYKEMA PLLC, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, for Kmart Holding Corporation; W. Henry
Jernigan, Jr., Ramonda Lyons, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Walgreen Company and The
Kroger Company; David Allen Barnette, JACKSON KELLY
PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Wendy Wildung, Craig S.
Coleman, FAEGRE & BENSON LLP, Minneapolis, Minne-
sota, for Target Stores Incorporated. Brian A. Glasser, BAI-
LEY & GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Joshua
I. Barrett, Sean P. McGinley, DITRAPANO, BARRETT &
DIPIERO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Frances A.
Hughes, Chief Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 3
OPINION
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
The State of West Virginia, by its Attorney General, com-
menced this action in state court against CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
and five other pharmacies (collectively, the "Pharmacies"),
alleging that the Pharmacies sold generic drugs to West Vir-
ginia consumers without passing along to the consumers the
cost savings of generic drugs over brand name equivalents, in
violation of West Virginia Code § 30-5-12b(g), regulating the
practice of pharmacy, and the West Virginia Consumer Credit
Protection Act, prohibiting "unfair or deceptive acts or prac-
tices in the conduct of any trade or commerce," West Virginia
Code § 46A-6-104, and "excess charges," id. § 46A-7-111.
The State, claiming to act in its "sovereign and quasi-
sovereign capacity," seeks injunctive relief, restitution and
disgorgement of "overcharges," recovery on behalf of the
consumers of "excess charges," civil penalties, interest, costs,
and attorneys’ fees.
The Pharmacies removed the action from state court to the
district court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA"), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), arguing that
the action is a "disguised class action" and therefore was sub-
ject to removal under CAFA.
On the State’s motion, the district court ordered that the
action be remanded to state court, holding that the action was
not a "class action" under CAFA, but rather a "classic parens
patriae action" intended to vindicate the State’s quasi-
sovereign interests and the individual interests of its citizens.
We affirm, concluding that this action is not a "class
action" as defined by CAFA. CAFA authorizes the removal
of specified civil actions that are brought under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 or a "similar State statute or rule of
judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or
4 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
more representative persons as a class action." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This action was not
brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, nor under
West Virginia’s corresponding rule, West Virginia Rule of
Civil Procedure 23. Rather, it was brought under a West Vir-
ginia statute regulating the practice of pharmacy and the West
Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, neither of which
includes provisions providing for a typical class action, such
as provisions addressing the adequacy of representation,
numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements.
Because this action was brought by the State under state stat-
utes that are not "similar" to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, we conclude that it is not removable under CAFA as a
class action.
I
Attorney General Darrell McGraw commenced this action
in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, naming
as defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Kmart Holding Corpora-
tion, the Kroger Company, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Walgreen
Co., and Target Stores, Inc., and alleging that in filling drug
prescriptions, these Pharmacies overcharged West Virginia
citizens, in violation of two laws, West Virginia Code § 30-5-
12b (the "Pharmacy Act") and West Virginia Code §§ 46A-6-
104 and 46A-7-111 (the West Virginia Consumer Credit Pro-
tection Act or "WVCCPA"), and thereby obtained unjust
profits.
The Pharmacy Act requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions
with generic drugs, when appropriate, and to pass on to the
consumer the savings in the cost of the generic drugs. Thus,
when a pharmacy acquires a brand name drug at $30 and a
generic equivalent at $10, the pharmacy must pass on at least
the $20 difference to the consumer. See W. Va. Code § 30-5-
12b(g). But it must also pass on any other savings, such as the
savings represented by the difference in the retail prices. See
id. The Attorney General contends that violations of the Phar-
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 5
macy Act also constitute violations of the WVCCPA, which
prohibits "unfair or deceptive" trade practices and the collec-
tion of "excess charges." See W. Va. Code §§ 46A-6-104,
46A-7-111.
As authorized by these Acts, the West Virginia Attorney
General is, in this action, seeking a temporary and permanent
injunction against further violations of the Acts; "[e]quitable
relief, including but not limited to restitution and disgorge-
ment of monies obtained as a result of the overcharges";
repayment of the "excess charges" to affected consumers;
civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each willful violation of the
WVCCPA; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
costs including legal fees. The State alleges that it is pursuing
these remedies "in its sovereign and quasi-sovereign capac-
ity."
The Pharmacies removed the action to federal court, rely-
ing on several distinct grounds for doing so, including CAFA.
To justify removal under CAFA, the Pharmacies asserted that
because the "complaint [was] a disguised class action"
designed "to recover funds on behalf of those consumers who
have allegedly paid overcharges," it was a removable class
action. In particular, they pointed to Count III, which is dedi-
cated to the remedy of collecting, on behalf of consumers,
excess charges under West Virginia Code § 46A-7-111(1).
That section provides that if "an excess charge has been made,
the court shall order the [defendant] to refund to the consumer
the amount of the excess charge." Id. Noting the large number
of consumers in West Virginia and prescriptions filled for
them, the Pharmacies argued that Count III met CAFA’s
numerosity and amount-in-controversy requirements. Because
the Pharmacies are not West Virginia citizens, they also
argued that minimal diversity was satisfied. Finally, because
the Attorney General was seeking refunds on behalf of each
affected West Virginia purchaser of generic drugs, the Phar-
macies contended that the action was a representational pro-
ceeding, qualifying as a "class action" under CAFA.
6 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
The district court granted the State’s motion to remand,
rejecting each of the various grounds relied on for removal.
With respect to the CAFA ground, which is the only issue on
appeal, the court concluded that this action was "a classic
parens patriae action that is neither a class action nor a mass
action contemplated by CAFA." West Virginia ex rel.
McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:09-1000, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 101127, at *50 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 21, 2010). In
concluding that this action was a parens patriae action, the
district court noted that the WVCCPA authorized the Attor-
ney General to act "as an administrator of the law," indepen-
dently of individual consumer complaints. Id. at *36-37
(quoting Manchin v. Browning, 296 S.E.2d 909, 919 (W. Va.
1982)); see also id. at *42 (observing that the Attorney Gen-
eral is charged with "a freestanding consumer-protection
duty"). The district court also noted that the State’s action was
"imbued with a ‘disgorgement’ purpose," "separate and apart
from the interests of particular consumers in obtaining recom-
pense." Id. at *38-39. In this sense, the court explained, "the
Attorney General’s paramount goal [was] to extract from the
alleged wrongdoers every penny associated with the excess
charges, along with civil penalties flowing to the State alone,"
thereby "warning . . . future violators that they [would] not
long profit from consumer fraud." Id. at *39-40.
The Pharmacies sought permission to appeal the CAFA
portion of the district court’s order, relying on 28 U.S.C.
§ 1453(c)(1), and we granted their motion by order dated
March 24, 2010.
II
In arguing that the district court erred in concluding that
this action was not removable as a class action under CAFA,
the Pharmacies acknowledge that the Attorney General did
not purport to bring his action as a class action but rather
relied on his authority under the Pharmacy Act and the WVC-
CPA. But the Pharmacies argue:
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 7
It is well-settled that "in determining whether there
is jurisdiction, federal courts look to the substance of
the action and not only at the labels that the parties
may attach."
***
Thus, the AG may not plead around federal jurisdic-
tion merely by labeling his claims as brought in the
state’s sovereign or quasi-sovereign capacity.
***
Instead, this Court must consider whether, in sub-
stance, the Amended Complaint satisfies CAFA’s
requirements for a "class action." That analysis
makes clear this case is properly removed as a
CAFA class action, and that the district court erred
by remanding it.
(Quoting Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536
F.3d 418, 424 (5th Cir. 2008)). After asserting that the
requirements for minimal diversity, the jurisdictional amount,
and numerosity were in fact satisfied, the Pharmacies assert,
as they must, that the state statutes on which the Attorney
General relied were "similar" to Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
dure 23. They explain that the statutes are "similar" because,
in particular, the WVCCPA allows the Attorney General "to
represent in a single action thousands of consumers who all
suffer a similar injury—excess charges." "That similarity
alone," they argue, is enough to satisfy federal removal juris-
diction.
To determine whether the Pharmacies’ position is sustain-
able requires a straightforward statutory analysis of CAFA.
CAFA authorizes the removal of any civil action which is
a class action in which (1) "the matter in controversy exceeds
8 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and
costs," 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); (2) "any member of a class of
plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant,"
id. § 1332(d)(2)(A); and (3) there are 100 or more plaintiff
class members, id. § 1332(d)(5)(B). And it defines "class
action" to mean "any civil action filed under rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or
rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought
by 1 or more representative persons as a class action." Id.
§ 1332(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added).
Inasmuch as West Virginia’s action was commenced in
state court, it was obviously not commenced under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Thus, it would be removable only
if it were filed under a "similar State statute or rule of judicial
procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more
representative persons as a class action." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added).
A state statute or rule is "similar" to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 if it closely resembles Rule 23 or is like Rule
23 in substance or in essentials. See Merriam-Webster’s Col-
legiate Dictionary, 1161 (11th ed. 2007). Moreover, as CAFA
requires, the state statute or rule must resemble or be like Rule
23 by "authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more repre-
sentative persons as a class action." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added). While the statutory defini-
tion is, to some degree, circular, Congress undoubtedly
intended to define "class action" in terms of its similarity and
close resemblance to Rule 23.
At its essence, Rule 23 provides that "one or more members
of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on
behalf of all members only if" the criteria for numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation are
satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) (emphasis added). Without this
representative nature of the plaintiffs’ action and the action’s
satisfaction of the four criteria stated in Rule 23(a), the action
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 9
is not a class action. It is not fortuitous that CAFA parroted
Rule 23 language when it required that a "similar" state stat-
ute or rule "authoriz[e] an action to be brought by 1 or more
representative persons as a class action." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(1)(B). Thus, while a "similar" state statute or rule
need not contain all of the other conditions and administrative
aspects of Rule 23, it must, at a minimum, provide a proce-
dure by which a member of a class whose claim is typical of
all members of the class can bring an action not only on his
own behalf but also on behalf of all others in the class, such
that it would not be unfair to bind all class members to the
judgment entered for or against the representative party.1
West Virginia Civil Rule of Procedure 23 would satisfy the
"similarity" requirement, but it was not invoked here.
Instead, the Attorney General filed a statutorily authorized
action on the State’s behalf, asserting claims arising exclu-
sively under state consumer protection statutes. Count I
alleges that the Pharmacies violated state law regulating the
practice of pharmacy in West Virginia, particularly West Vir-
ginia Code, § 30-5-12b(g). Counts II and III allege that the
Pharmacies violated portions of the WVCCPA, a wide-
ranging statute designed "to protect consumers from unfair,
illegal, and deceptive acts or practices," as prescribed in West
Virginia Code, § 46A-6-101 et seq. West Virginia ex rel.
McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 461 S.E.2d 516,
1
The dissent contends that for CAFA purposes, an action is "similar" to
a class action when it is brought under a procedure which "authorizes a
single person or a small group of people to represent the interests of a
larger group." Post, at 17 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 284 (9th ed.
2009)). Although this definition captures an important aspect of class
actions, it is also incomplete. All class actions are representative in nature;
but not all representative actions are necessarily class actions. See, e.g.,
General Telephone Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 333-34 (1980); In re
Edmond, 934 F.2d 1304, 1313 (4th Cir. 1991). In this regard, Rule 23’s
requirement that the representative party be a member of the class whose
claim is typical of the class members’ claims differentiates the representa-
tive nature of class actions from the larger body of representative actions.
10 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
523 (W. Va. 1995). For its enforcement the WVCCPA grants
the Attorney General "broad powers to supervise, investigate
and prosecute violations." Id. at 525 (quoting Harless v. First
National Bank, 246 S.E.2d 270, 276 (W. Va. 1978)).
Although the Attorney General may "[r]eceive and act on
complaints," the WVCCPA also empowers him to "com-
mence proceedings on his own initiative." W. Va. Code
§ 46A-7-102(1)(a).
Section 46A-7-111, on which Count III is based, authorizes
the Attorney General to pursue refunds on behalf of consum-
ers affected by "excess charges" and to seek civil penalties
where the excess charges were repeatedly and willfully col-
lected by a defendant. W. Va. Code § 46A-7-111(1)-(2). Here,
the Attorney General has exercised both of these powers, as
this action seeks repayment to consumers under § 46A-7-
111(1) and penalties inuring to the State of "up to $5,000 for
each repeated and willful violation" under § 46A-7-111(2).
These West Virginia statutes, on which the Attorney Gen-
eral relies for his claims, contain virtually none of the essen-
tial requirements for a Rule 23 class action. To begin with, the
Attorney General is not designated as a member of the class
whose claim would be typical of the claims of class members.
Rather, he is authorized to file suit independently of any con-
sumer complaints, as a parens patriae, that is, as the legal rep-
resentative of the State to vindicate the State’s sovereign and
quasi-sovereign interests, as well as the individual interests of
the State’s citizens. Indeed, the fact that the Attorney General
is acting to obtain disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, "separate
and apart from the interests of particular consumers in obtain-
ing recompense," CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 101127, at *38-39, validates this action as a parens
patriae action. See In re Edmond, 934 F.2d 1304, 1310 (4th
Cir. 1991).2
2
The dissent suggests that the Attorney General "does not have a quasi-
sovereign interest" in Count III because the reimbursement sought under
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 11
Moreover, neither the Pharmacy Act nor the WVCCPA
contains any numerosity, commonality, or typicality require-
ments, all of which are essential to a class action.
Finally, these Acts authorize the Attorney General to pro-
ceed without providing notice to overcharged consumers,
which would also be essential in a Rule 23 class action seek-
ing monetary damages. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,
472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985).
The Pharmacies argue that the suit is nonetheless a "dis-
guised class action" because Count III is a representative
action in which the Attorney General acts on behalf of the cit-
izens, each of whom allegedly suffered a common injury. See
Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 418
(5th Cir. 2008); West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Comcast
Corp., 705 F. Supp. 2d 441 (E.D. Pa. 2010). But that type of
representation is not the type that would make the State’s
action a class action. A class action is an action filed by an
individual as a member of a class and whose claim is typical
of the class members’ claims. Thus, for a representative suit
to be a class action, the representative party "must be part of
the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same
West Virginia Code § 46A-7-111(1) would flow directly to an identifiable
group of consumers, rather than to the State or its citizens generally. Post,
at 21. From this, the dissent concludes that Count III does not state a valid
parens patriae claim and that the action as a whole must be classified as
a class action. Id. at 20-23.
While the parens patriae analysis set forth in Alfred L. Snapp & Son,
Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982), and relied
upon in Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 418, 425-
28 (5th Cir. 2008), is helpful in some respects, it is not a substitute for the
similarity standard set forth in CAFA. We are presented here not with the
question of whether the instant action is either a parens patriae action or
a CAFA class action, but simply whether it is a CAFA class action. And,
while we conclude that this action is a parens patriae action, based on the
State’s deterrence and consumer protection interests, that conclusion is not
essential to the separate, and more meaningful determination that the
action in this case was not brought under a procedure "similar" to Rule 23.
12 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
injury’ as the class members." Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457
U.S. 147, 156 (1982) (quoting E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc.
v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977)); see Broussard v.
Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 338 (4th
Cir. 1998). The Attorney General’s claim on behalf of the
State, however, does not require the State to be a member of
the class, to suffer the same injury as class members, or to
have a claim typical of each class member’s claim. Rather, in
representing the citizens, the State acts more in the capacity
of trustee representing beneficiaries or a lawyer representing
clients, neither of which is the type of representation essential
to the representational aspect of a class action.
Indeed, the West Virginia Attorney General’s role here is
more analogous to the role of the EEOC or other regulator
when it brings an action on behalf of a large group of employ-
ees or a segment of the public. Yet, the Supreme Court has
concluded that such a regulator’s action is not a class action
of the kind defined in Rule 23. For example, in General Tele-
phone Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 334 & n.16 (1980), the
Supreme Court held that a sex-discrimination suit brought by
the EEOC under Title VII was "not properly characterized as
a ‘class action’ subject to the procedural requirements of Rule
23." The Court reached that conclusion despite the fact that
the suit sought back pay and other relief on behalf of all of the
employer’s adversely affected employees in California, Idaho,
Montana, and Oregon. Id. at 321, 324. Likewise, in Edmond,
we held that a bankruptcy claim brought by the Maryland
Attorney General’s Office "on behalf of itself and all [affected
Maryland] consumers" did not need to comply with Rule 23,
even though one of the claim’s primary purposes was to pro-
vide individual citizens with refunds pursuant Maryland’s
Consumer Protection Act. See 934 F.2d at 1306; see also id.
at 1310-13.
Much like the statutes at issue in General Telephone and
Edmond, the WVCCPA authorizes the Attorney General to
bring enforcement actions against violators and, in so doing,
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 13
to pursue relief on behalf of aggrieved individuals. See Scott
Runyan, 461 S.E.2d at 523-24. Yet that type of representation
by the State is no more characteristic of the representational
nature of a class action than were the claims in General Tele-
phone and Edmond. Neither the State nor the Attorney Gen-
eral is a member of the class purportedly represented, and
neither suffered the same injury as the citizens in that class.
The Pharmacies nonetheless argue that CAFA’s legislative
history supports their position. In particular, they point to
Senate Report 109-14, which outlines the Senate Judiciary
Committee’s views, and several floor statements made during
debate on the Act. Senate Report 109-14, however, was issued
10 days after CAFA was signed into law, and for that reason
alone, it is a questionable source of congressional intent. See
Coll. of Dental Surgeons v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 585 F.3d
33, 38 n.2 (1st Cir. 2009); see also Weinberger v. Rossi, 456
U.S. 25, 35 (1982) ("[P]ost hoc statements of a congressional
Committee are not entitled to much weight"). Moreover,
while some floor statements cited by the Pharmacies are
favorable to their arguments, others cited by the Attorney
General, from the same Senator and the same page of the
Congressional Record, point in the opposite direction. Com-
pare 151 Cong. Rec. S1163 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2005) (state-
ment of Sen. Charles Grassley that a subsequently defeated
amendment intended to exempt suits brought by state attor-
neys general would have "create[d] a very serious loophole"),
with id. (statement of Sen. Charles Grassley that "the amend-
ment [was] not necessary" because "cases brought by State
attorneys general will not be affected by this bill"). This legis-
lative history is hardly probative.
In sum, we conclude that because the action before us was
not brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or a
"similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing
an action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons
as a class action," 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B), the district court
14 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
did not err in remanding this case to the Circuit Court for
Boone County.
III
The West Virginia Attorney General initially filed this
action in a West Virginia state court to enforce, on behalf of
West Virginia and its citizens, state consumer protection laws
applicable only in West Virginia. Were we now to mandate
that the State was not entitled to pursue its action in its own
courts, we would risk trampling on the sovereign dignity of
the State and inappropriately transforming what is essentially
a West Virginia matter into a federal case. The Pharmacies
nonetheless rationalize such a transformation on the basis that
the Attorney General somehow mispleaded his case, disguis-
ing what would otherwise be a CAFA class action.
The Pharmacies’ approach, however, would have to ignore
the Attorney General’s stated basis for his action of seeking
to vindicate West Virginia’s interests in how pharmacies may
charge West Virginia consumers in filling prescriptions. If we
accept the Attorney General’s good faith in pleading his
claims—and we are given no reason not to—the Pharmacies
have no basis, real or postured, to assert that this is an "inter-
state case of national importance," the defining federal inter-
est animating CAFA’s removal provisions. See CAFA, Pub.
L. No. 109-2 § 2(b)(2).
To be sure, CAFA does protect important federal interests
in addressing state abuses in interstate class actions. It was
enacted to prevent States from keeping "cases of national
importance out of Federal court" and making "judgments that
impose their view of the law on other States and bind the
rights of the residents of those states." Id. § 2(a)(4). It thus
assures that federal courts decide "interstate cases of national
importance." Id. § 2(d)(2). But CAFA is also sensitive to
deeply-rooted principles of federalism, reserving to the States
primarily local matters. See Johnson v. Advance Am. Cash
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 15
Advance Centers of S.C., Inc., 549 F.3d 932, 938 (4th Cir.
2008); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3)-(5).
In this case, where West Virginia has raised no federal
question and where all persons on whose behalf West Vir-
ginia has filed this action are West Virginia citizens, the
"claim of sovereign protection from removal [arises] in its
most powerful form." In re Katrina Canal Litig. Breaches,
524 F.3d 700, 706 (5th Cir. 2008). Such sovereign protection
derives from our constitutional structure and serves the impor-
tant function of preserving the "dignity" to which states are
entitled "as residuary sovereigns and joint participants in the
governance of the Nation." Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706,
713-14, 748-49 (1999); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene
Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 268 (1997). It does so by preventing
States from being involuntarily "dragged" into any court—a
prerogative of sovereigns well established at the time of the
founding. See Alden, 527 U.S. at 715-18.
While it is true that West Virginia voluntarily entered into
its own courts to enforce its laws, it did not voluntarily con-
sent to removal of its case to a federal court, and a federal
court should be most reluctant to compel such removal,
reserving its constitutional supremacy only for when removal
serves an overriding federal interest. See Tennessee v. Davis,
100 U.S. 257, 266-67 (1880). It is telling that "[n]one of the
cases or founding history speak directly to" the question of
"whether a state as a plaintiff suing defendants over whom it
has regulatory authority in state court under its own state laws
may be removed to federal court," except when the state
raises a federal question. Katrina Breaches, 524 F.3d at 711.
Comity demands that we step most carefully before "snatch[-
ing] cases which a State has brought from the courts of that
State, unless some clear rule demands it." Franchise Tax Bd.
v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 21 n.22
(1983).
We conclude, in the circumstances presented here, that
CAFA does not clearly demand that West Virginia’s action,
16 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
which is essentially a parens patriae type of action for
enforcement of its own laws on behalf of itself and its citi-
zens, be removed to federal court, even though the Pharma-
cies are citizens of States different from West Virginia. The
Pharmacies are summoned to West Virginia courts only
because they do business in West Virginia and, while there,
allegedly violated its laws.
We emphasize, however, that even as our interpretation of
CAFA recognizes West Virginia’s important sovereign inter-
ests, it should not be taken as an interpretation that lessens
CAFA’s scope and important federal purposes. We simply
conclude that removal of this action does not serve those fed-
eral interests as articulated in CAFA.
Accordingly, the district court’s order remanding this mat-
ter to the Circuit Court for Boone County is
AFFIRMED.
GILMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The majority has concluded that the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA) does not provide federal jurisdiction over the
West Virginia Attorney General’s lawsuit because this case is
a parens patriae action and not a "class action" as defined by
CAFA. For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully dis-
agree.
The primary difficulty in this case, as I see it, is that CAFA
does not actually define a class action. As the majority notes,
CAFA’s definition of a class action is essentially circular:
"the term ‘class action’ means any civil action filed under rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State
statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to
be brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class
action." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B). And CAFA gives no
guidance as to what type of state statute or rule of judicial
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 17
procedure should be considered "similar" for purposes of con-
ferring federal jurisdiction.
In my view, the essence of a class action is set forth in the
first sentence of the term’s definition in Black’s Law Dictio-
nary: "A lawsuit in which the court authorizes a single person
or a small group of people to represent the interests of a larger
group . . . ." Black’s Law Dictionary 284 (9th ed. 2009). I
believe that the present suit brought by the Attorney General
squarely fits within that authoritative definition of a class
action.
True enough, as the majority points out, the Attorney Gen-
eral’s suit was not brought under Rule 23 of the West Virginia
Rules of Civil Procedure. This means that the elements of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of repre-
sentation have not been specifically pleaded. But I submit that
these are subsidiary factors that do not detract from the
essence of the action. They are, in other words, "bells and
whistles" whose absence in the pleadings do not prevent the
Attorney General’s suit from being considered a class action
under CAFA.
To decide whether CAFA grants federal jurisdiction over
the Attorney General’s lawsuit, therefore, one must determine
the essence of the action. See Louisiana ex. rel. Caldwell v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 418, 424 (5th Cir. 2008) ("It is
well-established that in determining whether there is jurisdic-
tion, federal courts look to the substance of the action and not
only at the labels that the parties may attach."). I believe that
the answer to this inquiry ultimately turns on who the real
party in interest is in this case. If West Virginia is the real
party in interest, then this is a proper parens patriae action
over which the federal courts lack jurisdiction. See Postal Tel.
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) ("A state is
not a citizen. And under the judiciary acts of the United States
it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a
corporation of another state is not between citizens of differ-
18 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
ent states, and that the circuit court of the United States has
no jurisdiction of it, unless it arises under the constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States."). On the other hand, if
the real parties in interest are the allegedly overcharged West
Virginia consumers, and the state is only a nominal party,
then I believe that we have jurisdiction under CAFA.
The Attorney General brings this suit in what he alleges is
West Virginia’s parens patriae capacity. "In order to maintain
such an action, the State must articulate an interest apart from
the interests of particular private parties," also known as a
"quasi-sovereign interest." Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v.
Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982). The
Supreme Court has stated that there are two general categories
of quasi-sovereign interests: (1) a state’s interest in the physi-
cal and economic well-being of its citizens in general, and (2)
a state’s interest in "not being discriminatorily denied its
rightful status within the federal system." Id.
Snapp provides an example of a valid quasi-sovereign
interest. In that case, the Attorney General of Puerto Rico
alleged that certain east-coast apple growers were violating
federal labor and immigration laws by discriminating against
Puerto Ricans in favor of foreign laborers. The Supreme
Court concluded that Puerto Rico has a "substantial interest in
assuring its residents that it will act to protect them" from dis-
crimination. Id. at 609. Alternatively, the Court concluded
that Puerto Rico had parens patriae standing to "pursue the
interests of its residents in the Commonwealth’s full and
equal participation in the federal employment service
scheme." Id.
Other examples of successful parens patriae actions
include cases where a state has sought to enjoin a public nui-
sance or ensure the economic well-being of its citizenry gen-
erally. See, e.g., Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 248 (1901)
(holding that Missouri could pursue an injunction to prevent
the defendants from discharging sewage in such a way that
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 19
polluted the Mississippi River in Missouri); Pennsylvania v.
West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 592 (1923) (recognizing Penn-
sylvania and Ohio as the proper parties to represent the inter-
ests of their citizens in maintaining access to natural gas
produced in West Virginia); Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
324 U.S. 439, 450 (1945) (holding that Georgia had an inter-
est apart from that of its citizens where numerous railroads
had conspired to fix freight rates in a manner that discrimi-
nated against Georgia shippers in violation of federal antitrust
laws). "In sum, if a state can demonstrate that, in bringing an
action, it seeks only to protect the well-being of its residents
in general, it has expressed a quasi-sovereign interest in the
entire action." West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Comcast
Corp., 705 F. Supp. 2d 441, 446 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
The "analytical framework in which a court examines a
state’s claims for relief has a powerful impact on the court’s
ultimate conclusion as to whether the state has a quasi-
sovereign interest in all the relief it seeks." Id. at 447. Like the
Fifth Circuit in Caldwell, and the Eastern District of Pennsyl-
vania in Comcast, I would adopt a claim-by-claim approach
to determine if West Virginia has a sufficient quasi-sovereign
interest such that it is acting within its parens patriae author-
ity. This framework best aligns with CAFA’s expansion of
federal jurisdiction over class actions. See Comcast, F. Supp.
2d at 449 ("The claim-by-claim approach does a better job of
unearthing a state’s real interest in a suit because, unlike the
wholesale approach, it does not blur the lines between those
claims for which a state has a well-recognized interest, and
those claims for which a state’s interest is negligible.").
In Caldwell, the Louisiana Attorney General filed a state-
court lawsuit styled as a parens patriae action against several
insurance companies and other defendants. The suit sought
forfeiture of illegal profits, treble damages, and injunctive
relief due to the defendants allegedly agreeing to undervalue
and underpay certain insurance claims of Louisiana citizens,
in violation of Louisiana’s antitrust laws. See Louisiana ex.
20 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 418, 422-23 (5th
Cir. 2008). Upon review, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the
Attorney General was only a nominal party in interest for pur-
poses of the treble-damages claim in light of the fact that the
state was seeking to recover those damages on behalf of indi-
vidual policyholders. In reaching this conclusion, the Fifth
Circuit stated that it was mindful that Louisiana was also
seeking injunctive relief, a remedy clearly sought on behalf of
the state. Id. at 430. But the court ultimately concluded that
despite the request for injunctive relief, the individual policy-
holders were the real parties in interest and, because the
requirements of a "mass action" were met, the action was
properly removed under CAFA. Id.
Similarly, in Comcast, the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that the Attorney
General was not acting within West Virginia’s parens patriae
authority where he sought relief for a "discrete group of Com-
cast’s premium subscribers." Comcast, 705 F. Supp. 2d at
450. In that case, the district court concluded that West Vir-
ginia did not have a quasi-sovereign interest in the antitrust
treble and compensatory-damages claims. The court further
held that the West Virginia Antitrust Act was sufficiently sim-
ilar to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to meet
CAFA’s requirements, thereby conferring federal jurisdiction
over the case. Id. at 454.
Here, the Attorney General asserts that the defendants (the
Pharmacies) violated West Virginia’s Pharmacy Act and the
WVCCPA, and he seeks damages payable directly to the
allegedly aggrieved West Virginia purchasers of generic
drugs under WVCCPA § 46A-7-111(1), civil penalties under
WVCCPA § 46A-7-111(2), injunctive relief, and other appro-
priate remedies. Utilizing a claim-by-claim framework, I
believe that the primary thrust of this case is the excess-
charges claim (Count III) for which the Attorney General
seeks reimbursement payable directly to the affected consum-
ers under WVCCPA § 46A-7-111(1).
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 21
I reach this conclusion for two reasons: (1) the WVCCPA
provides that a ruling that the consumers have been over-
charged will result in those overcharges being remitted
directly to the consumers, and (2) injunctive relief and any
civil penalties are discretionary with the court and require
more stringent proof on the part of the Attorney General.
Compare West Va. Code § 46A-7-111(2) (requiring proof of
repeated and willful violations of the WVCCPA before civil
penalties may be awarded) with West Va. Code § 46A-7-
111(1) (allowing the Attorney General to bring an action
against a creditor for charging consumers in excess of what
the law permits, regardless of the creditor’s state of mind).
Just as the Louisiana Attorney General did not have a
quasi-sovereign interest in the treble-damages relief he sought
on behalf of individual policyholders in Caldwell, the West
Virginia Attorney General here does not have a quasi-
sovereign interest in the refunds that the Pharmacies will be
required to pay directly to the affected consumers if they are
found to have violated the WVCCPA. Admittedly, the Attor-
ney General is also seeking civil penalties and injunctive
relief, these being the type of claims clearly within the state’s
parens patriae authority. But for the reasons stated above, I
do not believe that these claims are the primary focus of this
case, and are instead subsidiary claims that will be considered
by the trial court only if the primary claim of reimbursement
to the allegedly overcharged consumers is successful.
I believe that my analysis is strengthened by the fact that
some of the same private attorneys representing the Attorney
General here are simultaneously representing individuals who
have filed essentially identical claims against the same defen-
dants in Michigan and Minnesota. No one questions that those
cases are class actions; in fact, they were filed as class
actions. See Graphic Comms. Local 1B Health & Welfare
Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 09-cv-2203 (D.
Minn); City of Lansing v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 09-994
(30th Jud. Cir., Ingham County, Mich). If one were to close
22 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
one’s eyes as to who the named plaintiff is in the three law-
suits, there is no way to detect a material difference between
the Attorney General’s request for repayment to overcharged
consumers under WVCCPA § 46A-7-111(1) in the present
case and the same claims that are pending in Michigan and
Minnesota.
CAFA’s legislative history, which is admittedly limited,
also supports my conclusion that this case is simply not a
parens patriae action. During the debate in the U.S. Senate
over CAFA, Senator Pryor proposed an amendment that
would have exempted all class actions filed by state attorneys
general from removal under CAFA. See 151 Cong. Rec.
S1157 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2005). Both Senators Grassley (a
cosponsor of CAFA) and Hatch (the former chair of the Sen-
ate Judiciary Committee) opposed the Pryor Amendment
because, among other things, the Amendment risked "creating
a situation where State attorneys general can be used as pawns
so that crafty class action lawyers can avoid the jurisdictional
provisions of [CAFA]" by "simply includ[ing] in their com-
plaint a State attorney general’s name as a purported class
member." Id. at 1163-64.
The concern that Senators Grassley and Hatch expressed in
opposing the ultimately defeated Pryor Amendment is exactly
what has come to fruition here. I believe that the West Vir-
ginia Attorney General has been "used as a pawn" so that the
private class-action lawyers can remain in state court and
avoid the impact of CAFA, despite the fact that the real par-
ties in interest are the allegedly aggrieved West Virginia con-
sumers and not the state.
Having concluded that the affected West Virginia consum-
ers are the real parties in interest, I find that this action should
be removable under CAFA because the essential requirements
of a class action are met given the factual circumstances of
this case. Although the WVCCPA does not contain all of the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 23
dure, "CAFA does not require such exactitude." West Virginia
ex rel. McGraw v. Comcast Corp., 705 F. Supp. 2d 441, 452
(E.D. Pa. 2010). The Senate Judiciary Committee Report on
CAFA states that the definition of a class action should be
interpreted liberally:
[CAFA’s] application should not be confined solely
to lawsuits that are labeled "class actions" by the
named plaintiff or the state rulemaking authority.
Generally speaking, lawsuits that resemble a pur-
ported class action should be considered class
actions for the purpose of applying these provisions.
S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 35 (2005).
Here, the West Virginia Attorney General is representing a
large group of West Virginia citizens who have allegedly
been overcharged by the Pharmacies in their purchase of
generic drugs. Yet their claims are too small on an individual
basis to justify any one of them bringing suit alone. This is
exactly the type of situation that class actions were designed
to address. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Langer, 168 F.2d
182, 187 (8th Cir. 1948) ("The class action was an invention
of equity mothered by the practical necessity of providing a
procedural device so that mere numbers would not disable
large groups of individuals, united in interest, from enforcing
their equitable rights nor grant them immunity from their
equitable wrongs." (internal citation omitted)).
Further, the WVCCPA clearly contemplates that the Attor-
ney General can fairly and adequately protect the interests of
West Virginia’s generic-drug purchasers by bringing this type
of lawsuit on behalf of the class. See Comcast, 705 F. Supp.
2d. at 453 ("The [West Virginia Antitrust Statute] assumes
that the state attorney general is an adequate representative
. . . . "). The majority apparently disagrees, concluding that
the Attorney General’s lawsuit cannot be considered a class
action because the Attorney General is not an actual member
24 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
of the class. It principally relies on the case of General Tele-
phone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982),
to support its conclusion.
Falcon is a Title VII case in which Mexican-American
employees filed suit against their employer for alleged dis-
crimination in hiring and promoting. The Supreme Court held
that the class representative’s complaint failed to include any
"specific presentation identifying the questions of law or fact
that were common to the claims of respondent and of the
members of the class he sought to represent." Id. at 158. Spe-
cifically, the evidentiary approaches to the individual and
class claims were entirely different because the class repre-
sentative "attempted to sustain his individual claim by prov-
ing intentional discrimination, [whereas he] tried to prove the
class claims through statistical evidence of disparate impact."
Id. at 159.
I have no problem with the majority’s proposition that the
class representative’s claims should be typical of those of the
class as a whole. But Falcon is distinguishable from this case.
Unlike the class representative in Falcon, whose claims were
not typical of the class, the putative class in this case is com-
prised of identically situated West Virginia consumers who
have allegedly been overcharged for their generic drugs. I
therefore believe that the majority’s conclusion that the Attor-
ney General cannot be a class representative because he has
not literally been injured is too narrow a reading of class rep-
resentation.
The Fifth Circuit, in fact, did not even discuss the point that
the Louisiana Attorney General himself was not actually
harmed. Rather, the court simply concluded that the lawsuit
was "brought in a representative capacity on behalf of those
who allegedly suffered harm." See Caldwell, 536 F.3d at 430;
see also Comcast, 705 F. Supp. 2d at 453 (stating that the
West Virginia Antitrust Act assumes that the Attorney Gen-
eral is an adequate representative).
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 25
The majority also relies on General Telephone Co. of the
Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980), and In re
Edmond, 934 F.2d 1304 (4th Cir. 1991), to conclude that the
Attorney General’s role in this case "is more analogous to the
role of the EEOC or other regulator when it brings an action
on behalf of a large group of employees or a segment of the
public." But these cases are distinguishable. General Tele-
phone involved a Title VII action filed by the EEOC in its
own name pursuant to its authority under § 706 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court concluded that where
the EEOC acts under § 706, "it acts also to vindicate the pub-
lic interest in preventing employment discrimination," and not
as a class representative. Id. at 326. Section 706 expressly
authorizes the EEOC to bring a "civil action against any
respondent . . . upon failure to secure an acceptable concilia-
tion agreement, the purpose of the action being to terminate
unlawful practices and to secure appropriate relief." Id. at
324. And the EEOC has exclusive jurisdiction for the 180-day
period following the filing of a charge with the Commission.
In contrast, the Attorney General’s power under WVCCPA
§ 46A-7-111(1) is at all times controlled by decisions that the
consumer is free to make regarding whether to initiate his or
her own lawsuit, and the relief the Attorney General seeks
under that provision is solely for the benefit of the aggrieved
consumer. Further, General Telephone involved federal ques-
tions arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and therefore
did not address the availability of federal jurisdiction in a
diversity action.
In re Edmond is also distinguishable. In that case, the
Fourth Circuit held that the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act gave the Maryland Consumer Protection Division parens
patriae authority to bring a nondischargeability proceeding
against a debtor. The court concluded that the Consumer Pro-
tection Division was acting on behalf of the state’s quasi-
sovereign interest because (1) the Maryland Consumer Pro-
tection Act grants the Consumer Protection Division the
26 WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
authority to "initiate administrative hearings to obtain a cease
and desist order on its own initiative," and (2) the Division
has the ability to require disgorgement, in the absence of indi-
vidual complaints, and in some cases "over and above that
which will be returned to individuals." In re Edmond, 934
F.2d at 1310-11 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Unlike the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, WVCCPA
§ 46A-7-111(1) does not "contemplate[ ] enforcement by the
[Attorney General] without regard to individual consumers."
See id. at 1310. The Maryland Consumer Protection Act pro-
vides that a "private action is ‘in addition’ to any action by the
Division." Id. at 1312 (quoting Md. Code Ann. Comm. Law
§ 13-408). In contrast, the Attorney General’s power under
WVCCPA § 46A-7-111(1) is dependent on whether the con-
sumer files his or her own suit. I believe that the fundamental
differences between the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
and the WVCCPA makes any reliance on In re Edmond mis-
placed.
As mentioned above, the allegedly overcharged consumer,
like any putative class member considering whether to join a
class action, has the ultimate say as to whether to be bound
by the Attorney General’s lawsuit. WVCCPA § 46A-7-111(1)
provides in pertinent part that
[i]f a consumer brings an action against a creditor to
recover an excess charge or civil penalty, an action
by the attorney general to recover for the same
excess charge shall be stayed while the consumer’s
action is pending and shall be dismissed if the con-
sumer’s action is dismissed with prejudice or results
in a final judgment granting or denying the consum-
er’s claim.
The Attorney General’s power over a particular generic-
drug purchaser’s claim is thus ultimately controlled by the
consumer. I therefore believe that WVCCPA § 46A-7-111 is
WEST VIRGINIA v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 27
sufficiently similar to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to meet CAFA’s requirements for class actions.
And because this is (1) a civil action (2) in which the amount
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 and (3)
involves a plaintiff class exceeding 100 persons whose West
Virginia citizenship is different from any defendant, none of
whom are considered citizens of West Virginia, I would hold
that CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements are met. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d).
One final issue that the majority addresses is the concept of
sovereign immunity. But because West Virginia voluntarily
brought this lawsuit, I see no Eleventh Amendment or sover-
eign immunity concerns in asserting federal jurisdiction over
this case. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE")
Prods. Liab. Litig., 488 F.3d 112, 118-120 (2d Cir. 2007)
(explaining that the "removal of the cases here was the result
of the voluntary acts of California and New Hampshire in
commencing the lawsuits against the defendants [and,] having
done so, these states subjected themselves to all the rules and
consequences attendant to that decision"); see also California
ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 848 (9th Cir.
2004) (rejecting the state’s argument that involuntary removal
is equal to commencing a suit against the state because
"where a State voluntarily becomes a party to a cause and
submits its rights for judicial determination, it will be bound
thereby and cannot escape the result of its own voluntary act
by invoking the prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment"
(quoting Gunter v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 200 U.S. 273,
284 (1906)).
In sum, there is a saying that if something looks like a
duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably
a duck. To my mind this case "quacks" much more like a
CAFA class action than a parens patriae case. I would there-
fore reverse the judgment of the district court and allow this
case to proceed in federal court.