Coleman

Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc.

Good Law
627 F.3d 1096·2010 WL 4925407·16 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1761·2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24434
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 30, 201010-80152California1,564 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bradford Coleman sued Estes Express Lines, Inc. and Estes West, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, in California state court. Estes Express removed to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005). The district court remanded to state court because the case involved a local controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (c)(1), Estes Express has applied for leave to appeal that order.

This Circuit has not yet articulated criteria to determine when it is appropriate to hear discretionary appeals under CAFA. Here, we set forth criteria to guide a reviewing court. Applying those criteria to the facts of this case, we grant Estes Express’ application for leave to appeal.

I. Background

Estes Express is a Virginia-based corporation that acquired California-based G.I. Trucking in 2005. After the acquisition, G.I. Trucking became Estes West (d/b/a G.I. Trucking). Estes West operates as an “internal regional division” of Estes Express, much like Estes Express’ Southeast, Southwest, Northeast, and Upper Midwest regional divisions.

Estes Express owns 100% of Estes West and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.