American Bar Association | Litigation Section
Class Actions & Derivative Suits
Winter 2025, Vol. 35 No. 1
____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
© 2025 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any
portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database
or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
Ninth Circuit Courts Confront Attempts by UCL Plaintiffs to
Avoid Removal After Sonner
By Raza Rasheed
Due to differences in pleading standards, discovery rules, and potential jury pools (among other
things), many California consumer class action plaintiffs prefer to litigate their claims in state
court, while many class action defendants seek options to remove such suits to federal district
court. Often, defendants have a jurisdictional basis to remove consumer class actions filed in
state court to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d), which permits removal when there is minimal diversity between the parties, the
amount in controversy is greater than $5,000,000, the proposed class contains at least 100
persons, and certain exceptions do not apply.
Recently, however, many California plaintiffs have attempted to defeat removal by asserting
claims for purely equitable relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code § 17200, while pleading that they do not meet the traditional jurisdictional and
standing prerequisites to obtain equitable relief in federal court. This approach has met with
some success, as several California district courts have accept ed consumer plaintiffs’
representations and remanded putative UCL class actions to state court. Federal district courts
may have options in appropriate cases to reject conclusory standing and jurisdictional
representations designed to obtain remand. As in other contexts where a plaintiff attempts to
destroy federal jurisdiction through carefully crafted allegations, courts may be able to scrutinize
anti-jurisdiction allegations to curtail efforts to evade the removal right Congress enacted in
CAFA.
Background Legal Rules Governing Removal of UCL Class
Actions to Federal Court
California’s UCL allows consumers to bring suit against “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The statute does not allow consumers
to recover traditional legal damages. Instead, UCL plaintiffs are limited to restitution and
injunctive relief (id. § 17203), two traditionally equitable remedies. Because the UCL grants only
equitable remedies, two concepts are relevant to whether a putative UCL class action may be
removed to federal court: original jurisdiction and equitable jurisdiction.
Original Jurisdiction
A defendant seeking to remove a putative UCL class action from California state court to federal
court must show that the federal courts have “original jurisdiction” over the lawsuit. See 28
