Stevenson v. Becker
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-02277
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Stevenson v. Becker, Judge Gilliam certified an interlocutory appeal concerning removal and remand jurisdiction in related securities actions.
The order affects Kim Stevenson, Howard Tarlow, Stephen Rossi, and the defendants in the Stevenson and Rossi actions. It also addresses the expected remand dispute and possible stay in Rossi II.
What happened
Stevenson v. Becker is one of three related securities class actions that defendants moved from California state court to federal court. The plaintiffs asked the federal court to send two of the actions back to state court.
On March 28, 2024, the court denied those requests to return the actions to state court. The parties then agreed that the order presented an important legal question for immediate appeal: whether a Securities Act restriction on removal prevents removal of an action connected to a bankruptcy case.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that the requirements for an immediate appeal were met. The parties agreed that the federal proceedings in Stevenson and Rossi I would be paused while the appeal proceeds, and that the appeal’s result would control the expected remand dispute in Rossi II, subject to court approval where required.
The detailed version
- Stevenson v. Becker · No. 4:23-cv-02277
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 11, 2024
Background
Kim Stevenson and Howard Tarlow filed a proposed securities class action in California state court on April 10,
- Stephen Rossi filed a substantially similar proposed securities class action in state court on April 14,
- Rossi later filed another substantially similar action on February 15,
- Certain defendants removed these state-court actions to the Northern District of California.
The plaintiffs in Stevenson and Rossi I moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return those cases to state court. On March 28, 2024, the court denied the remand motions. That order identified a recurring legal question: whether Section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 bars removal of an action related to a bankruptcy case under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).
Parties’ stipulation
The parties agreed that this question satisfied the requirements for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): it was a controlling question of law, substantial disagreement existed about the answer, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation.
The parties also agreed that proceedings in Stevenson and Rossi I would be stayed while the anticipated appeal proceeded, and that defendants would not have to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints before the appeal was resolved. They anticipated seeking a similar stay in Rossi II if that action were related to the other two actions. The parties agreed that the March 28 Order would determine Rossi’s expected remand motion in Rossi II unless the appeal changed that order.
Ruling
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. concluded that the March 28 Order involved a controlling legal question, that substantial grounds existed for disagreement, and that an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation’s conclusion. The court therefore ordered certification of the March 28 Order for an interlocutory appeal. The text supplied does not include a separate ruling on whether the Ninth Circuit accepted the appeal or a separate operative order imposing the proposed stays.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.